California: LA Times editorial complains about "undemocratic" recall law

The LA Times is banging the drum on the "undemocratic" nature of the recall -- that the Governor and other state officials can be replaced by someone who wins with a smaller vote total than the official they are replacing and calling for the adoption of a Constitutional Amendment to change the law. The amendment would use either the automatic replacement/by-law replacement (the Lieutenant Governor steps in when there is the removal of the Gov) or what apparently is now seen as the vastly more democratic model of having the governor appoint a replacement. If the governor is removed in the first two years, there's a special election after some time; if it is the last two years, then the LG serves out the term. The special would be an additional cost that takes place after the recall -- which may actually result in even lower turnout. 

As I've written before, this is just begging for disaster. First, it can lead to targeted recalls to remove an official and have an automatic replacement take over without the challenging of running for the seat. In California, where the LG is separately elected (and, prior to the 2000s, frequently from the other party), there may be a desire to test this. The other very likely option would be a multi-official recall, so no appointment will work (and it can just float down to the legislature or lower). If you believe this is unlikely, note that in Wisconsin, the Lieutenant Governor faced just such a recall simply under the concern that the law would be used in such a way that the LG would move up to the Governor's seat in case of a recall. 

One model that is not discussed that would I would recommend to solve the problem is the Queen of the Hill rules that Idaho uses. Under that scenario, the recall does not succeed unless the vote total tops the vote received by the official in the original election.