The spate of recall elections that has been taking place across the country, including
here in Wisconsin, have been praised as affirmations of our greatest democratic ideals.
However, there is a strong defense of a not-quite-opposing view that these elections are a
slightly mitigated form of mob rule.

The founding fathers implemented a form of representative
democracy that would give power to the people but keep the policy-making with the peoples’ chosen delegates. And while their cult has descended to absurdity, the founders have been vindicated
in this matter by both history and the present.

To gather an intuition of how the fickleness of the crowd leads to policy shipwrecks, look no farther than California. Here, where the gods of referenda rule, there is a crisis in
most policy arenas. Popular referenda passed to simultaneously ensure the continuance of beloved social services
and vitiate the ability of government to raise the revenue necessary to fund these services have caused California’s finances to be in their death throes.

It
gives the people who haven’t done the math or thought through the myriad consequences of the
chance to have their money and spend it too.
In the struggle preceding the passage of
Proposition 8, which would have denied the rights of same-sex couples to marriage had it
not been struck down after passage, there was over $83 million raised between the
proponents and opponents. While politicians might generally be busy slobbering over lobbyists
and salivating over their super PACs, at least their standards for corruption are higher than a 30-second ad spot seen twice a week.

Turning back to Wisconsin, one can see an analogue in the recall elections of various
state senators in 2011. Thirty million dollars was spent by “outside interest groups” to influence
the recall elections. With so much cash
coming in from abroad, this is not a product of Wisconsin democracy, but rather
a manufactured outrage paid for by very specific interest groups. The elections were instigated by the now notorious budgeting bill aimed at curbing the
massive shortfall, yet the bill’s austerity measures were not really surprising given the views of
the senators stated prior to the uproar.

 The lack of any clear public opinion on the matter adds
credence to this view. Throughout the protests surrounding the creation of the budgeting bill law, as well as
after enactment, Gov. Scott Walker’s approval rating has remained remarkably consistent. Only
fluctuating a few points, he is still well above the ubiquitous disdain his opponents seem to think
him at; he’s been staying in the midway zone of about 51 percent approval to 46 percent disapproval.

The near-perfect divide moves one to ask
how it is that a recall election can be propounded without incontrovertible disapproval from an
overwhelming majority. Without universal condemnation of an incumbent, it merely becomes a
further perversion of process, as the filibuster has become in the U.S. Senate.
One can easily imagine the terrible political future of a state that recalls its elected
officials every year when no more than half the populace disapproves of some measure. The
vicious cycle perpetuated by special interest money, rabble-rousing and cheap slogans will yield
the end of effective governance.

The drastic consequences of using spurious recall elections as political ploys are too great to disregard.
While there is much to loathe in the legislation and administration of Walker and co.,
one might turn again to a founding father and remember that “An ounce of prevention is worth a
pound of cure.” This is especially relevant when the cure itself has unignorable, adverse side effects; there is no
substitute for an educated electorate before they go to the polls.

Vincent Dumas ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in history and philosophy, and minoring in computer science.