A Presidential Unelection
Should we have a right – and a mechanism – to Unelect A President?
As we approach the 2008 Presidential Election, many people will be relieved to see George W Bush's reign end.
Bush's approval rating is about 20%. A huge majority of the country think he is doing a lousy job. That's not the same as saying that he should be fired, but it is pretty close to it. No opinion poll that I have seen has asked the question “If you had the chance, would you vote Bush out of office?” but it seems that there is a good chance that many, possibly a majority, would. It is fortuitous, perhaps, that he is about to be replaced, but that is an accident of the system, not part of the system.
What if Bush still had another 3 and a half years before the next election? Today's po is “Shouldn't we be able unelect the president?”
If a majority of the people in a democracy wants the person who is President not to be their President any more, why should he remain President?
I'm sure many would answer “because that's what the Constitution says”, but I'm asking whether we need a better constitution – a better democratic process.
There have been times when a President-Elect did not have the support of the majority of the voters even on the day he won the election. Bush did not in 2000, because of the random anachronism of the Electoral College – which suggests a pretty obvious need for reform of the democratic process if we are to be serious about being a democracy. But even in Florida, Bush did not have a majority of the votes. Had the votes cast for any one of the five candidates coming third or worse gone to Gore, then Gore would have won (not only Florida, but the Presidency).
But why should someone be President of a democracy, when a majority of the people – even on day one – don't want him to be? Why should not a minimum job requirement of the President of a democracy be that a majority to the people want him or her to be their president – each and every day that he or she holds the office?
Because nobody would ever get a majority? That's clearly not true. Candidates have got a majority; Gore appeared to in 2000, and Bush appeared to in 2004. (I say “appeared to” because the electoral system doesn't produce a conclusive result for the popular vote. We never know how many people didn't bother to vote in states were the result was a forgone conclusion for their state).
But it would certainly be harder if the election wasn't over until one candidate had a majority. It would require a more sophisticated voting mechanism; one in which voters were able to change their votes, but that's not impossible. If we wanted, it's quite possible to have a voting system in which voters could change their votes – where voters could vote for who they wanted, when they wanted, and for just as long as they wanted.
I wonder what such an election would be like? Many of the conventions of the current system would have to remain. At some point, Hillary would have to concede that she can't win and withdraw – an attempt to concede specifically to Obama, passing her support to him. She might have to do it even though she held 20% of the “real votes” to Obama's 22%. But, unllike primaries, they would be real votes – not the votes of minority of voters in a minority of states, not pledges of super-delegates, but real votes placed by real voters anywhere in the US. She would do it to give a democrat (albeit her second choice) a chance of winning against a republican who might already have 42% of the real vote, and to give that democrat the chance to win over the 18% of voters who have not voted or voted for someone else.
In the system I envisage, Hillary would be able to “pass over” the votes she held to the candidate she chooses, so Obama might immediately jump to 42%, in this example. But the voters don't have to agree with her. Any voter whose vote Hillary passed to Obama could change that vote to any other candidate. (This action shows the need need for a “cooling off period” - enough time for voters to assess a situation and act, by changing their vote, if they choose to.)
What if the voters choose “none of the above”? What if they obstinately refuse to give anyone a majority. Is this an expression by the people that “Nobody” is better than anybody; that not having a president for a while might be a good idea? Some candidate may not agree and those are the candidates that might see the wisdom in stepping aside, in passing the support to another candidate, so that he might obtain an overall majority. Some voters might not agree either, and those voters would change their vote from their preferred, but hopeless, candidate to their preference from those who have a chance. Their preferred candidates obstinacy to surrender his ambition in the face of the voter's perceived need to agree on a president may be the stimulus to change the vote. And if enough of the people feel that the “least worst candidate” is better than “Nobody” then he or she will get a majority and the job.
What if voters changed their minds after the election? Let's assume that the election ends, not just when one candidate's votes momentarily exceed 50%, but when the candidate has maintained that position for a reasonable cooling off period. Perhaps 30 days; long enough for the Press to inform the voters, and the opposition to have their chance to dissuade the people. Long enough to provide convincing evidence that “the people have decided”. But what happens if “the people change their mind”. In the same spirit of providing convincing evidence of an informed, deliberate, and deliberated decision, suppose that a majority of voters not only think the current President is doing a poor job, not only do not support the incumbent as President, but also activity wish him fired, and that position has been maintained for 30 days, shouldn't he be fired?
Should we have a right – and a mechanism – to Unelect A President?