Dysfunctionality in government

[Sanford Levinson]

First, some shameless self-promotion:

Levinson: Why I Did Not Sign the Constitution
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20030923_levinson.html

This provoked the following from Prof. Tung Yin of the University of Iowa Law School:

....  You note one of the structural deficiencies of the Constitution as being:

. . . the Constitution's provision for rigidly fixed terms of presidential office - which means that we can be saddled with patently deficient presidents until their time in office mercifully expires.

At the same time, on the list-serv, and indeed, even in the column, you criticize the California recall process.  Now, I realize that many of your objections relate to the perceived problem of having the winner in part 2 take office while a lower percentage of votes than Gray Davis garners to keep his office -- in other words, to the way that the recall takes place, as opposed to the recall itself.  These objections could be dealt with through a ranked voting (or single transferrable vote) system or Steve Bram's approval voting.

But does this mean that you support the principle of allowing voters to recall political leaders ahead of the conclusion of their terms in office?
__________________________________________

I responded as follows:

Yes, you are right:  I'm not opposed to recalls per se.  My view that the California procedure is "lunatic" relates to the mode by which the successor governor is selected.  I also tend to support legislative votes of no-confidence (by, say, a 2/3 vote) over a popular referendum.