Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Wisconsin Election Poll

  1. Keep all 6 Republicans up for recall

    8 vote(s)
  2. Replace all 6 with new Democrats

    1 vote(s)
  3. Keep Gov Walker only

    0 vote(s)
  4. Replace Walker only

    2 vote(s)
  1. Jun 5, 2012 #1
    Just wondering how the Wisconsin recall election would go if it were held here in PF.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 5, 2012 #2
    IMO, the cause of the recall is clearly the anti-union Walker moves, but the reason I think the republicans will win the day is simple economics. Budget balanced, government costs down, better jobs reports, small business is happier, and the union membership has dropped like a rock. The last point tells me the membership was not impressed with their leadership. I think this says it about right. http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/04/opinion/gergen-zuckerman-walker/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 In the end, "it's the economy stupid" which is still the phrase that pays with votes.
  4. Jun 5, 2012 #3
    I voted for Walker today purely on principle. He won the original election fairly and hasn't been bad enough for the recall to be warranted.
  5. Jun 5, 2012 #4

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2017 Award

    I tend to agree with your thinking. A recall vote is warranted in cases of criminal behavior or extreme corruption (like your neighbor to the south's governor selling a senate seat) but not because of unpopular policies.
  6. Jun 5, 2012 #5

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2017 Award

    CNN Declares: "Walker Survives Recall Election - Narrowly Defeats Milwaukee Mayor". I guess 58-41 is a narrow victory for them.
  7. Jun 6, 2012 #6


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I'm seeing 53-46 (equal to Obama's victory margin in 2008!) and not seeing the "narrowly" part. I've noticed issues with overnight editing in web news before...

    Regardless, this is a huge blow for public sector unions and therefore the Democratic party, IMO. To me, at least one of Walker's acts was just a common sense overturning of legislated corruption: forcing people to join unions. I can't fathom how that was never struck down as unconstitutional. But how it got there is obvious: one hand (unions) washes the other (Democrats).

    I'm not sure if this exists in WI, but a similar one that has to go in Philly is requiring the use of unions for some tasks/projects.
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2012
  8. Jun 6, 2012 #7

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2017 Award

    Yes, that was the final count. But last night CNN was simultaneously claiming "narrow defeat" and 41-58. I'll believe one, and I'll believe the other; just not both at the same time.

    I agree that this is a huge blow for public sector unions; their threat "side with the taxpayers against us and we'll through you out of office" has been shown to be empty.
  9. Jun 6, 2012 #8
    Since Governor Walker eliminated mandatory union dues withdrawls from paychecks, paying members have go from about 69,000 to about 28,000. No reason for any government entity to be collecting forced union dues.

    In fact, I can't think of any reason unions should even be allowed in the public sector: they are paid via our taxes.
  10. Jun 6, 2012 #9
    It amazing how democrats believe in democracy, till it goes against them then they need to remove the democratically approved gov. I happen to be a union member, but make my contract with the people paying me, public sector unions make contracts against future generations that have no say. I am glad the vote went the way it did. I have wondered why workers need collective protection agianst the government any how. Isn't the government the ones who defend workers rights? I guess except for the worker, to have the right to work.
  11. Jun 9, 2012 #10


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    You left off a relevant part of that statement: "... till it goes against them then they need to remove the democratically approved gov.".... via the democratic processes of their state.

    Your statement would be more meaningful if they decided to remove the governor with a small militia.

    That said, I do tend to agree with your sentiment. We already have periodic recall elections every 2 years, 4 years, 6 years - whatever the term of office is. I think recall elections (and impeachment) were really designed for something a lot more serious than just disagreeing with the politicians' viewpoints (and a lot more serious than for embarrassing sexual escapades). They should be to remove a politicians because of serious crimes and/or jeopardizing the entire existence of the nation/state/city etc.

    I would have voted against the recall just out of principle, because I don't think the situation was an appropriate reason for a recall election.
  12. Jun 11, 2012 #11
    Lying under oath is pretty worthy IMO.

    I've heard the sentiment from more people that I expected that they didn't vote against Gov. Walker because he hasn't done anything wrong in the legal sense.
  13. Jun 14, 2012 #12
    These would generally be cause for impeachment. Recall would be for people that are just doing a horrible job, not holding to election promises, driving the economy into the ground, ect... and all just based on ineptitude or lack of care for the consequences of their actions, no criminal wrong doing necessary.
  14. Jun 14, 2012 #13
    I'm on the fence between you and the OP. On the one hand, we can't just recall people because we failed to get "our guy" the first time around. I doubt that anyone thought he was going to be anything other than pro-business and pro-growth when he won the first time. Given his victory was greater the second time around, I think it's clear the majority got what it wanted the first time.... so what now, try another recall? I hope not. That leads to V-50's position as to conduct that is criminal, brings disgrace to the office (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Sanford) , etc. I think that’s an appropriate use of a recall, without having to wait until things work their way through the courts. On the other hand, we have a representative government, which means if you are a conservative republican Representative in TX on the border with Mexico and the bulk of your voters support open borders, you have to vote their way. If you are a pro-choice Democrat that lives in a district that’s all pro-life, you have to vote pro-life. In a Representative for of government, the Representative is our voice and our vote, and if they don’t agree with us, they can try to persuade we’re wrong. In the end, if persuasion fails, they should vote the will of the people. When Representatives don’t represent the voter, that’s a cause for recall.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook