Comparing Recalls to Elections:

      Those who don't think there's much difference between a Recall campaign and Election are wrong. A recall campaign does act as a long, extended version of an election, as support of the electorate is expressed over a 160-day period (the siganture gathering timeframe), rather than on one election day; but the differences are much more fundamental.

THINK OF A RECALL AS A PROCESS THAT ALLOWS A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE ELECTORATE TO WIELD VETO-POWER OVER PERSONS HOLDING OFFICE, WHO LACK PROPRIETY, BUT WHO WERE VOTED-IN BY A MAJORITY OF VOTERS FROM ONE OF THE TWO MAJOR PARTIES, DESPITE THEIR REPUTATIONS, BECAUSE THEY WERE 'THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS'

        It takes a lot higher percentage of the electorate to vote-in a politician, than it does to take one back out. It's actually easier to recall a politician than to get one elected, since it takes approximately 20-25% of the electorate's votes to put a candidate in to office, but only about half that many to take one out.
         So, for example, say there was an extremely well-organized group of people who formed a political Party and their numbers grew to about 10% of the electorate. The party would probably never be able to get a candidate elected, assuming the two major parties were still around. However, if the party faithful acted in unison to force recalls of officers they opposed from the Democratic or Republican Parties, the members (10% of the electorate) could effectively veto the holding of any office by a Democrat or Republican who became too corrupt, or out-of-line in a way that offends persons from both sides of the political spectrum. The reason being, that the two major parties split most elections 40-60, or 60-40 (not counting voters who don't vote for either party); so there's always a large percentage of the population (40% or more), in any district, who will vote - almost automatically, and in unison - against the incumbent-recall-target from 'the other major party'.
       Therefore, if a major party candidate gets caught in a bath-house while his wife is at Church, the partisan voter numbers-advantage is eroded, and the small party pushing the recall, joing with 'the other major party' disciples, and some malcontents from his own party, will be able to oust a politician, who could get caught doing the same thing, but survive election after election, due to innattentive and uninformed voters voting habitually for 'their' party.  In other words, it takes a non-partisan scandal, that offends persons from accross the political spectrum, and 'the recall-veto party' could take any candidate out with relative ease. A scandal based upon partisan viewpoints, would not suffice, to supply the kind of large scale motivational issue needed to drive a a successful recall campaign.
        But that's fine, because most people believe we all have a right to be partisan, and still hold office without undue interference and distraction, where behavior by a duly elected official does not cross-the-line, so to speak. But politicains from both sides of the aisle lose their legal and moral right to hold office when they perform their official duites in a manner thatt offends all, or that is criminal in nature. Recalls assure that those kind of politicains cannot be saved by partisans voters from either major party, that love their Political Party more than their community.