The USA spends hundreds of millions. They must be VERY democratic.

I, for one, hope we never waste money like that on elections. All it means is that only the super rich can get elected.

Way over the top, Rafe! The Premier like all the other MLA's can be recalled! That is the democratic advantage we have here compared to countries who suffer dictatorships which can NOT BE RECALLED!

Franco, Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Yung Il - those are examples of real dictators.

"Like most dictators, he fears opposition thus he stifles it at every turn."

What a baloney! The Election Expense Bill would apply equally to everyone who is running!

We do NOT have a dictator in power in any province in Canada or in Ottawa!

Rafe, start a recall campaign!

By the way: Wise words, Owl.

Funny some call our parliamentary dictatorship a democracy.
It is only a democracy when it benefits those in power.
Seems to me our so called recall option was tried once upon a time and was proven to be a waste of taxpayers money.

Recall legislation was designed by politicians to give the appearance of being democratic.
It does NOT work and it will never work.
It is interesting to note that B.C.is the only province to have recall legislation.
Since 2003,there have been a total of 22 recall campains.
No recall campain has ever been successful,and that should come as no suprise,and it is rare we even hear about them at all.
Owl is correct in that the U.S.is set up to only elect the super rich, but really,I dont think we are that far off that here in B.C.
We just have a different definition of "rich".
You only get in if a particular party allows you in,and it usually depends on who you know and having the right connections.
Oh ya...be sure to kiss the right asses on the way in!
Just check your brain and your self-respect at the door,do what you are told, and don't have an opinion on anything, and you just might survive in the back benches...maybe!

Actually, the recall campaign in Nanaimo against Paul Reitsma was successful. Enough signatures had been collected, but he resigned before it was returned to the Chief Electoral Officer.

The difference in that campaign compared to every other recall campaign was that citizens of all political parties got together in disgust at his behavior and worked together.

I found nothing that states the recall was successful, only that he resigned when there were enough signatures collected

Success in a depends on the number of signatures collected. Collect the required number or more and it is successful.

Reitsma resigned when it was announced that the required number of validated signatures had been collected, therefore it was a successful recall, albeit not by the formal, legal route. Even that would have been a formality.

"Success in a recall". I should learn to type.

Correct lostfaith....Paul Reitsma did in fact resign when it started to LOOK like the recall might be succesful.
The theory is that he was told to resign, thus avoiding having a precedent set with a successful recall.
If you read the conditions for a recall,it is in fact, almost impossible to pull it off.
Whether or not the Reitsma recall would have been a success would have depended greatly on what the government and the courts decided.
I have my doubts.

But..., if he resigned because of the number of signatures collected, believing that he would have been required to step down, then he must have resigned because of the recall campaign, must he not? The signatures were collected during the recall campaign, no?

The difference between the legal recall and the actual recall is surely just one of those technical legalities that are always decried during court cases when people get off. What is so different here?

Ammonra: "Success in a recall depends on the number of signatures collected. Collect the required number or more and it is successful."

Well, precisely! If enough signatures are collected to recall a person who a sufficient number of people perceive to be a *dictator*
then he is finished!

The recall petition must have a proper reason in order to proceed...undemocratic and dictatorial abuse of power might just make the grade!

If he resigns when he thinks that he will be toast anyways the action has be succesful.

By the way: Even if a recall attempt fails because it doesn't collect the required number of signatures it doesn't mean that it did not work as intended!

It's democracy in action when people are at least given an opportunity to give it a try.

Remember the Ramsey recall attempt?
While those involved did a poor job,the government had the holes picked in it before the ink was even dry!
I think they would do the same with any recall attempt.

Yes I do remember the Ramsey attempt.

People who had died and people who had moved away (since the time Ramsey was elected) were counted in the total of which a percentage had to be attained in order for the recall to be successful.

Some of the dead probably would have been only too happy to sign the recall form had they been alive again to do so!

Rumours were spread around P.G. that people who signed the recall petition would lose *all their human rights* and other such intimidating non-sense.

Recall is definitely a very difficult thing. Yet, then Premier Glen Clarke was solidly in favour of it when it was passed into law, saying that sometimes waiting many years for the next election to come around with the opportunity to remove an MLA simply wasn't good enough.

But, I really don't know WHY the NDP set the hurdles so high and make it so extremely difficult to actually recall somebody.

Had a good vacation, Ammonra?

I agree with Diplomat's view.

One has to define the goal one wishes to achieve.

In the case of recall, I would assume that the goal is to remove someone from office at non-election time for not doing their job.

There would be several "tools" to do that. The political recall process would be one. For that tool success would be having sufficeint numbers of accepted "votes" to remove the individual from office.

If, during that process, the indivudual resigns prior to the process having been completed, or even the process having just missed the mark and he/she resigns, then the objective of removing the person has not only been met, but the entire recall process, while unsuccesssful in gathering the required number of "votes" was likely instrumental in the indivudal removing him/herself from office.

The rest is moot. The primary objective has been met.

Ah yes, the great dictatorship of BC. The place where people freely debate on internet forums, protest in the streets without being shot, and have the ability to change the government every single time an election occurs. What a tyranny.

Yes, Diplomat, I had a good time. It wasn't primarily a vacation though. I went to speak to a professional convention. I also met a friend I had not seen for 45 years, had several types of beer never tasted by me before and ate fish and chips with fish I had never heard of!

I seem to recall that the percentage of voters to accomplish a recall was set after quite a bit of debate about what would be appropriate. The problem was to ensure that election by a close majority could not simply be undone by too low a requirement, nor to have and too high a number that it would be impossible. The numbers required could be changed easily enough, but I notice there has been no move to do so, likely for the same reasons as they were originally set.

I have always believed that recall should not be easy, but require a definite effort. It has also become clear that the electorate as a whole do not choose to use it to reverse an election result, but reserve it for offensive wrongdoing by the MLA. The only recall to succeed was of that kind, all the others which failed were purely partisan political in nature. I think that the voters completely understand its purpose and have used it the way they intended. In other words, recall is functioning properly.

I still have a Recall Ramsey bumper sticker. Maybe I might put it on eBay and flog it and retire.