Would you like to see the US Constitution amended to allow recall of POTUS?

[°Leprechaun]

This is something that I have been thinking about, but I haven't reached a conclusion pro or con.
It is complicated, but some states have this for elected officials.
What are the pros and cons and would it be done by popular vote, supermajorities, or the electoral college?

We have impeachment, but we can't vote on it in the midterms in the sense that we can't mathematically elect enough Dems to reach 2/3 of the Senate. Many GOP Senators would
have to flip and it would have to be bipartisan.

[Sir Mohamed]

No, because it wouldn't be difficult to garner enough signatures to force such an election. You need just 12% of the electorate of the last election in CA to force a recall election. Even if you have 25% nationally, each side would easily collect the number of signatures required to force an election since each president has roughly half of the country against him/her in these divisive times. The result would be a permanent ongoing campaign that paralyzes the entire system even further. Actual governing and unpopular decisions, that presidents have to make on occasion, would be impossible and lead to even greater division. Another argument against it: Elections matter. We can't just repeat voting and voting because the losing side isn't satisfied. Not to mention that permanent campaigns would waste a lot of money and distract from important issues.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

No, because it wouldn't be difficult to garner enough signatures to force such an election. You need just 12% of the electorate of the last election in CA to force a recall election. Even if you have 25% nationally, each side would easily collect the number of signatures required to force an election since each president has roughly half of the country against him/her in these divisive times. The result would be a permanent ongoing campaign that paralyzes the entire system even further. Actual governing and unpopular decisions, that presidents have to make on occasion, would be impossible and lead to even greater division. Another argument against it: Elections matter. We can't just repeat voting and voting because the losing side isn't satisfied. Not to mention that permanent campaigns would waste a lot of money and distract from important issues.

[°Leprechaun]

OK, interesting analysis. I know the idea is problematic and perhaps that is an understatement.
It is something to think about. I know that a lot of people, especially Democrats, want to see an end to the electoral college, but that may never happen. (I think that is a relevant issue as well, since the loser of the popular vote has won the electoral college in two recent elections and therefore a recall would be a remedy to this issue, even if not the best one)

[Alabama_Indy10]

No, because it wouldn't be difficult to garner enough signatures to force such an election. You need just 12% of the electorate of the last election in CA to force a recall election. Even if you have 25% nationally, each side would easily collect the number of signatures required to force an election since each president has roughly half of the country against him/her in these divisive times. The result would be a permanent ongoing campaign that paralyzes the entire system even further. Actual governing and unpopular decisions, that presidents have to make on occasion, would be impossible and lead to even greater division. Another argument against it: Elections matter. We can't just repeat voting and voting because the losing side isn't satisfied. Not to mention that permanent campaigns would waste a lot of money and distract from important issues.

[Fudotei]

The President also isn't directly elected (which I see as a good thing in principle), specifically to avoid these things. Each state, weighted for population, votes for the POTUS and not the people overall. The will of politically weighted states can outweigh their overall relevance to the country (i.e. such a petition would be mostly from people in California, no?)

So you might have situations like in 2016, where Wisconsin put Trump over the edge but mostly California and NYC voters get him in a recall again.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

I would only support it if a recall took more than 50% of the population's support. If a recall referendum took say 2/3 support, then it would work.

[Sestak]

No.

[J. J.]

No.  Even if this was considered, it would have be based on the states, perhaps states representing 2/3 of the electoral votes, 359.   

Since 1900, four incumbents has lost reelection by more than 2/3 of the electoral votes, Taft (1916), Hoover (1932), Carter (1980), and GHW Bush (1992),but in three of those cases, there were strong 3rd party candidates. Only Hoover was not facing a 3rd party candidate.  Looking at the 1930 Congressional elections, I would question there were 2/3 of the electoral votes to recall him, prior to1932.  I don't know if this would have had any impact on any incumbent, even if it had been established.

[Hammy]

This wouldn't work given the country's large population and size. I do however think there should be an automatic referendum on the president during midterms (as in, a direct legally binding "remove or keep" during the midterms, not just in the sense of the midterms themselves being seen as one.)

[Sir Mohamed]

This wouldn't work given the country's large population and size. I do however think there should be an automatic referendum on the president during midterms (as in, a direct legally binding "remove or keep" during the midterms, not just in the sense of the midterms themselves being seen as one.)

And what if "remove" wins? Who becomes prez then? The VP? The losing candidate of the last election or a previously selected nominee (through a long primary?)? Or is a new presidential election called immediately? I think this is not practicable or a good idea.

[The Mikado]

Recall would be insane because it'd be used every time a President was in a rough, low-approval patch.

It would not be hard to come up with, say, 30 million signatures for a recall of Donald Trump, but you could've easily done the same to Barack Obama in 2010, or George W. Bush in 2007, or Bill Clinton in 1993, or...

[brucejoel99]

Recall would be insane because it'd be used every time a President was in a rough, low-approval patch.

It would not be hard to come up with, say, 30 million signatures for a recall of Donald Trump, but you could've easily done the same to Barack Obama in 2010, or George W. Bush in 2007, or Bill Clinton in 1993, or...

#RecallAllPresidents

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

NO!

[Hammy]

This wouldn't work given the country's large population and size. I do however think there should be an automatic referendum on the president during midterms (as in, a direct legally binding "remove or keep" during the midterms, not just in the sense of the midterms themselves being seen as one.)

And what if "remove" wins? Who becomes prez then? The VP? The losing candidate of the last election or a previously selected nominee (through a long primary?)? Or is a new presidential election called immediately? I think this is not practicable or a good idea.

I could've sworn I said but obviously not, oops. The VP would become president in this situation and the vote would work like a vote of confidence sort of thing. And there would be sort of turnout threshhold as well, for instance a narrow vote to cut short the incumbent's term would fail if turnout is low.