The People Ought to Have the Ability to Recall Elections

Thanks for the rebuttals:First, I would like to note my oppoent completely drops my argument pertaining to the politicial theory of recall elections; that Aristotle thought they were essential to democracy, and placed it in the Athens Consitution as a result. Therefore, I ask that the audience notes 1) that indeed it was used in Aincent Greece as a fundamental tool to democracy and that 2) it is in theory an excellent tool used to prevent politicial corruption. Essentially my opponent argues that having recall elections would be defficent to democracy-My reply has already been noted, my opponent simply just re-asserts his position with no real new counter. The fact still remains in countries such as the UK, Canada, and at the state level in the US, recall elections are not all that common. My opponent simply commits a reductio ad absurdum here, as by implication he believes the whole political system would be instable as a result, which simply isn't true. Not all systems of government would have this, only those elected. So for example those working in the Supreme Court with tenure wouldn't be affected. And what Texas has to do with this debate is beyond me, as I already noted that is a constitutional issue not a recall election. The texas seperation cannot be decided by a recall election because recalls only pertain to a politican being pulled out of office. That's it! Several US states have used recall elections before and none of their systems are in total chaos as a result, and thus it is absurd to think otherwise. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) My opponent continues on about . .. well . . I don't exactly know what . . - My opponent is aying semantics with me, the fact still remains that recall elections are not used for the poltical stances one takes, but on the illegitimacy of his or her governence should it lack transparency. Again, my opponent completely dropped this point, and furthermore, the secession petitions are again, a constitutional issue, not a recall one. Recall elections are for politicians to be pulled out of office, not if Texas can leave or not. .. . Furthermore, I already noted again that it simply isn't true that recall elections are abused with examples of the UK, Canada, etc. . because of the way recall elections work. If my opponent would kindly read my source, he would know that indeed, a ceratin amount of signatures in the form of a petition would be needed to start a recall election. Say it's a majority in a state, and the state elected an offical, it doesn't make sense that the majority would vote said politician in, then out in a recall on the basis of partisan lines. Because of the way people vote, assuming it was a win, those who origonally voted for the politician would have to vote against him in the recall, which if he is loyal to party member is mathmatically unlikely. What we are talking about here is should a major problem occur (like a scandal) and partisanship is no longer in the equation, which then the politican should face recall elections. My opponent asserts the political system is ineffective, and would get worse due to this policy - But the fact still remains that the political system is already ineffective due to partisanship. We are not allowing peoiple in political parties to decide a politicians career (which would be predicatble and a conflict of interest) but the people and how they view his or her merits instead! This would make it more efficent, not less. My opponent talks about Texas seperationalism - This has nothing to do with recall elections. This is a constitutional issue, not an issue faced by a single politican which is what a recall election is concerned with. Why Texas is being brought up is beyond me! In fact there is no relevance here ladies and gentlemen. My opponent maintains that not all impeachments follow partisanship - Richard Nixon may be true, however, Clinton was not impeached due to partisanship. In fact if you look at the voting records here:. https://en.wikipedia.org... is no doubt that a strong correlation exists between political party, and voting for or against Clinton. Furthermore, if Clinton had the support of the people, then why not allow them to vote instead of the partisan hackery? My opponent completely dropped this point. Why not the people? !Conclusion:In his final argument my opponent concerning the impeachment of Clinton supported my argument, he dropped my argument pertaining to Aristotle and how it is essential to democracy as a result, furthermore, he doesn't even counter any of my arguments, he just re-asserts his own again and again dropping my points. There is no abuse of the system, people ought to be able to vote on impeachments not partisans in predictable ways, and recall elections are simply good for democracy! Thank you for the debate.