So does America have too much democracy?

archives

Verified User
“Bemoaning Ohio results, Santorum says ‘pure democracies’ aren’t how to run a country”

“After a particularly disappointing night for Republicans, Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) lamented “pure democracies,” where major decisions are left up to voters rather than their elected officials.”

“You put very sexy things like abortion and marijuana on the ballot, and a lot of young people come out and vote,” Santorum said.”

“Thank goodness that most of the states in this country don’t allow you to put everything on the ballot because pure democracies are not the way to run a country,” Santorum said Tuesday night on Newsmax.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4299354-santorum-ohio-results-pure-democracies/

So basically it appears Ron is saying that major decisions effecting people’s lives shouldn’t be left up to those people but rather decided by politicians, politicians who today with campaign financing are often bought and paid for by outside interests. And in the case of abortion, largely, white men

Interesting in the era of Trump, where the dominate thought is that there exists such as “deep states” and “swamps” overriding the people’s interests that now a right wing advocate on a right wing entity is preaching elitism
 
“Bemoaning Ohio results, Santorum says ‘pure democracies’ aren’t how to run a country”

“After a particularly disappointing night for Republicans, Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) lamented “pure democracies,” where major decisions are left up to voters rather than their elected officials.”

“You put very sexy things like abortion and marijuana on the ballot, and a lot of young people come out and vote,” Santorum said.”

“Thank goodness that most of the states in this country don’t allow you to put everything on the ballot because pure democracies are not the way to run a country,” Santorum said Tuesday night on Newsmax.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4299354-santorum-ohio-results-pure-democracies/

So basically it appears Ron is saying that major decisions effecting people’s lives shouldn’t be left up to those people but rather decided by politicians, politicians who today with campaign financing are often bought and paid for by outside interests. And in the case of abortion, largely, white men

Interesting in the era of Trump, where the dominate thought is that there exists such as “deep states” and “swamps” overriding the people’s interests that now a right wing advocate on a right wing entity is preaching elitism

Santorum is an idiot.
 
It's actually an interesting discussion and one that comes up a lot in California. During the progressive era (early 20th century) we created the ballot measure to try and give voters more a say and take away power from the railroad barons. In more recent times the state has become so reliant on ballot measures that people across the political spectrum are questioning our reliance on it. It's also seen as a way for our elected representatives to avoid doing their job and making hard choices.

And people's like/dislike also involves the results of certain ballot measures. In the mid 90's Californians voted for Prop 187 which was to deny all forms of public assistance to those here illegally. (ultimately the court prevented it from being implemented) In 2008 Prop 8 passed which banned gay marriage. Again, people were all kinds of pissed off and didn't think it fair. But is direct democracy good when we like the results and bad when we don't?
 
America does not have enough democracy. Politicians have managed to make getting reelected very easy. Over 90 percent of politicians get back in. They have set it up with gerrymandering. They are throwing monkey wrenches into the machinery of democracy. As an aside, the electoral college should be eliminated.
 
This is from a progressive site but is just one person's analysis. But offers good insight into the question of direct democracy and the best way to do it.




California’s ballot initiative system isn’t working. How do we fix it?

Is direct democracy delivering on its promise?


I live in California. And three weeks before the election, the people in my quarantine bubble sat down in our living room for a nine-hour research project: figuring out how to vote.

Not for our elected representatives or for president, but on kidney dialysis regulations and stem-cell medical research funding and whether to uphold a law passed by the legislature replacing cash bail with a risk assessment system — and nine more propositions after those. My ballot was six pages long, many of them on issues I’d never thought about before — and, after a few frustrating hours figuring out how to vote, will never think about again.

Direct democracy can be a profound and important tool for political change, and 2020 had many examples of that. In several states, voters decriminalized drugs from marijuana to mushrooms — sending a powerful message to lawmakers that their constituents are done with the war on drugs. I’ve written in past years that voters are way ahead of state legislatures on banning animal cruelty. America’s electoral system definitely benefits from a place for voters to directly weigh in on issues. (My colleague Sigal Samuel has a rundown of the ballot initiatives that we should cheer in today’s edition of the Future Perfect newsletter. Subscribe!)

But what it doesn’t benefit from is a system like California’s, where ballots get padded out and weighted down with unclearly written ballot propositions on a dozen niche issues. Many people have been frustrated by these problems on their ballots, but California — where voters have been asked to simultaneously entertain abolishing and expediting the death penalty, to weigh dueling propositions about plastic bags, to advise the state legislature to overturn US Supreme Court decisions (it cannot do that), and now, on two different occasions, to weigh in on the proper running of dialysis clinics — leads the pack.

A system that funnels lots of issues, both big and small, directly to the voters leads to bad policy judgments, because under-informed voters don’t have time to research and form opinions on all the issues. It leads to a handicapped legislature that can’t do its job, because large sections of state law are untouchable. (In California, for instance, the legislature has to send many propositions to voters because other propositions have prohibited them from legislating directly.) When a voter-approved initiative is unclearly worded, it can cause years of uncertainty — because the issue can’t easily be sent back to the voters to adjust the wording.

But just because how we run ballot propositions today is a problem doesn’t mean we have to give them up altogether. There is a way we can make direct democracy work.

How ballot initiatives work

Let’s say that you dislike the work your state legislature is doing. In 26 US states and Washington, DC, you have the power to ask voters to pass laws themselves through a ballot initiative.

There are, broadly, three categories of ballot initiatives available in the states that have a citizen initiative process. In the first, citizens draw up a proposed law and put it on the ballot. If other citizens approve it, it becomes a law. In the second, citizens who disapprove of a law the legislature passed put it on the ballot to try to repeal it (called a “veto referendum”). In the third, citizens propose, and vote on, a change to the state constitution.

Some states only allow some of these types of initiatives, and some don’t allow citizen initiatives at all. Maryland and New Mexico, for example, only allow veto referendums; Utah, Wyoming, Washington, Maine, Alaska, and Idaho allow citizens to put forth initiatives, but not constitutional amendments. Illinois, Mississippi, and Florida allow constitutional amendments but not initiatives.

The details of the process to put a new law, a veto referendum, or a constitutional amendment on the ballot varies from state to state, but in general, proponents file their proposed initiative with the state and then start collecting signatures for it. If they collect enough signatures, it goes on the ballot for the next statewide election. If it wins over enough voters at the election, it becomes a law.

Lots of important work has gotten done through ballot initiatives. But in many ways, laws passed via initiative are more problematic than laws passed by the legislature. Because they are not written by professional legislators, they are often unclearly written; many voters report being confused about what ballot initiatives they voted on will do. Many ballot measures are misleadingly structured so that a “no” vote represents a big, confusing change to the law, while a “yes” vote does nothing. There is fierce political fighting about initiatives are summarized on the ballot — a process that is supposed to be apolitical, but sometimes isn’t.

And while initiatives were meant to empower grassroots political movements, the system to put an initiative on the ballot is much easier for large lobbying groups to navigate, and special interest groups drive many initiatives.

In some states, like California, the sheer number of initiatives is starting to get out of hand, which worsens all of the other problems with ballot initiatives, as it’s easier for voters to see through one misleading proposition than through 10.

Lessons from California

Every state does direct democracy in a different way.

But California reliably has one of the longest ballots. In 2016, there were 17 statewide initiatives. The voter guide mailed to all voters to explain them was 224 pages long.

In 2020, the threshold for initiatives to make the ballot was substantially higher (the threshold is set based on turnout in the most recent governor’s race, and 2018 turnout set records) and there weren’t as many. But voters still weighed in on bonds to pay for stem cell research, property tax changes, a repeal to the state ban on affirmative action, restoring voting rights for convicted felons, allowing 17-year-olds who will be 18 in November to vote in primaries, more property tax changes, changes to criminal sentencing, allowing rent control in more parts of the state, labor policies for ride-hailing apps, dialysis clinic regulations, a new data privacy law, and abolishing cash bail.

Those were just the statewide initiatives; voters also considered many city and countywide local initiatives. That’s 12 statewide initiatives, more than anywhere else in the country (though Colorado voters came close, with 11.)

California also had by far the most spending aimed at changing minds on ballot initiatives: $708 million in contributions, compared to $121 million in the next most-contested state. Across all 50 states, 120 ballot measures were decided on Election Day.

California’s initiative process permits all three types of resolutions (initiatives to create a new state law, initiatives to veto a state law passed through the legislative process, and initiatives to amend the constitution) and makes it much easier than many states to put an initiative on the ballot — requiring just 5 percent of the number of voters who voted in the gubernatorial race in the most recent election to put an initiative on the ballot. Many states require 10 percent of the number of votes cast for governor — and many states have competitive elections for governors.

California’s gubernatorial races are almost never competitive and often have very low turnout, which depresses the signature requirement further. In 2016, only 365,880 signatures were needed (in a state with 40 million people and 18 million registered voters) to add an initiative to the ballot. (High 2018 turnout raised the bar somewhat, but as a percentage of total population, it’s still one of America’s lowest thresholds.)

Finally, it’s not just easier for laws to make it onto the ballot; it’s also easier for them to pass. In many states amending the constitution requires a supermajority. In Florida, for example, which amended its constitution this week to raise the minimum wage, a 60 percent majority is required. In California, propositions including those amending the state constitution pass if they get more than 50 percent of the vote.

California was one of the first states that allowed citizen-driven ballot initiatives, and at first, ballot initiatives were sparse. As collecting signatures became easier, the number of California propositions has spiked — especially in the last few decades. As a result, the initiative system “has grown quite unwieldy and crude in ways that have perverted the initial vision,” historian William Deverell at the University of Southern California said this fall.

How to make direct democracy work

For all of the drawbacks of ballot initiatives, the variety of different approaches to propositions in different states is a great thing — one of the best examples of the state system’s function as “laboratories of democracy.”

We now have some results from those laboratories of democracy, and they suggest that the initiative system works best when there are a manageable number of initiatives on the ballot at election time. Voter participation is higher, and voters are more able to focus their attention on a handful of meaningful, high-value issues: Should we legalize marijuana? Should we reenfranchise people who have been convicted of a crime and served their sentence? Should we change how our state votes?

When voters are snowed under with nearly a dozen propositions, including many on highly specific niche issues like kidney dialysis regulation that they’re unequipped to evaluate, participation drops, and the results become more strongly predicted by which side spent the most money — probably because if voters don’t have time to look things up, they’re more likely to go with what they saw on TV. The impressive successes of ballot initiatives against the war on drugs this year should have governments in every state thinking about how they can best use ballot initiatives to their full potential.

For the 14 states that don’t allow any ballot initiatives, that might mean rethinking that. But for the states that allow ballot initiatives with a very low threshold, and see low participation and high voter confusion as a result, it means rethinking that, too. Promising proposals include raising the signature threshold, capping the number of propositions on the ballot, and restricting “counter-propositions” — conflicting laws on the ballot at the same time.

Direct democracy is a part of our system because of a belief that voters deserve a direct say in how their state is run. The best implementation gives voters a few highly meaningful choices well worth their time. If we can’t manage that, we’re not empowering voters — we’re burdening them.


https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/...allot-initiative-proposition-direct-democracy
 
I find that on most ballot propositions, the judgement of the people is at least as good, and often better, than elected representatives.

I think you need elected representatives for things like enacting government budgets and foreign policy.
 
It's actually an interesting discussion and one that comes up a lot in California. During the progressive era (early 20th century) we created the ballot measure to try and give voters more a say and take away power from the railroad barons. In more recent times the state has become so reliant on ballot measures that people across the political spectrum are questioning our reliance on it. It's also seen as a way for our elected representatives to avoid doing their job and making hard choices.

And people's like/dislike also involves the results of certain ballot measures. In the mid 90's Californians voted for Prop 187 which was to deny all forms of public assistance to those here illegally. (ultimately the court prevented it from being implemented) In 2008 Prop 8 passed which banned gay marriage. Again, people were all kinds of pissed off and didn't think it fair. But is direct democracy good when we like the results and bad when we don't?

Always thought California requirements to get an issue on a ballot were off somewhere cause it appears every year California has something on a statewide ballot, just a thing that doesn’t seem to happen that often elsewhere. In the NorthEast, only Mass and Maine have public initiated ballots, and not very often

I don’t see them as a problem, as long as the requirements are met, and the requirements can’t be based upon California’s. Santorum is way off base suggesting people should just put all their confidence in elected officials
 
Every state is different I guess but here's another one from the progressive leaning SF Chronicle editorial board:




California desperately needs ballot measure reform. Will Democrats ever find the courage to do it?

There’s one quick fix lawmakers could make: transfer the power for writing ballot measure titles


It doesn’t take much to realize that California’s ballot measure process is deeply flawed.

It’s easily hijacked by special interests with deep pockets and political bones to pick — hence the seemingly endless ballot measures on kidney dialysis clinics in recent years. It often enables backroom deals, such as the state Legislature agreeing in 2018 to ban new local soda taxes until 2031 in exchange for a business group withdrawing a ballot measure that would make it more difficult to raise taxes in general. And industry groups are increasingly using California’s referendum process for financial gain.

Once a referendum qualifies for the ballot, the law it’s challenging is prevented from taking effect until voters decide whether to keep or reject it at the next regular general election — which can be as long as two years away. This buys valuable time. The tobacco industry, for example, qualified a referendum on a 2020 state law banning the sale of flavored tobacco products, putting it on hold until the 2022 general election. Voters ultimately upheld the law, but the industry netted hundreds of millions of dollars from another two years of selling flavored tobacco products.

Overhauling California’s ballot measure process is a complex task. But there’s at least one quick, easy fix lawmakers could make to drastically reduce politicization: transfer the power to write ballot measure titles and summaries — which play a critical role in influencing voters — from the elected, partisan attorney general to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, which already writes impartial, thorough and digestible analyses for the state’s official voter information guide.

Unfortunately, legislators refuse to do so. Over the past 15 years, according to legislative analyses, bills to transfer the attorney general’s ballot-titling power to the Legislative Analyst’s Office have died repeatedly, including on Sept. 1, when Democrats in the appropriations committee buried two bills by state Sen. Roger Niello, R-Fair Oaks (Sacramento County).

Having a partisan official — who since 1999 has been a Democrat — control perhaps the most consequential language on the ballot is a clear conflict of interest.

Attorney General Rob Bonta was originally appointed to his position by Gov. Gavin Newsom. The governor is aggressively pushing a March 2024 ballot measure to overhaul the main source of mental health funding for counties and authorize billions in bonds to build behavioral health facilities — which Bonta will title and summarize for voters.

John Matsusaka, executive director of the University of Southern California’s Initiative and Referendum Institute, told the editorial board that, amid growing national polarization and mistrust in institutions, the attorney general’s approach to labeling and summarizing ballot measures has become increasingly politicized.

“It’s a no-brainer to take the titling away from the attorney general and give it to the (Legislative Analyst’s Office) … because we’ve seen it be abused,” Matsusaka said.

One prime example: 2020’s Proposition 15. The measure, which was supported by many of California’s top Democrats, would have amended Prop. 13 — the landmark 1978 initiative capping property taxes — to raise taxes on large commercial and industrial properties.

Yet the title, prepared by then-Attorney General Xavier Becerra, made no mention of tax increases and instead emphasized feel-good causes: “Increases funding sources for public schools, community colleges, and local government services by changing tax assessment of commercial and industrial property.”

Wording like this makes a big difference, as 2018’s Prop. 6, which proposed rolling back an increase to the state’s gas tax, made clear.

When the Public Policy Institute of California read to likely voters Becerra’s title for the measure — “Eliminates certain road repair and transportation funding. Requires certain fuel taxes and vehicle fees be approved by the electorate” — a majority opposed it. But when likely voters were asked if they supported repealing the gas tax increase, 50% said yes.

Voters deserve a crystal-clear understanding of the measures they’re called to decide upon. Using word games to trick them into supporting the whims of the majority party does a disservice to democracy and adds to growing public cynicism over the political process.

Last week, Newsom signed into law a bill sponsored by labor and environmental groups that makes sweeping changes to California’s referendum process to limit industry challenges.

Under the new law, Californians will no longer be asked to vote “yes” or “no” on a referendum — their choices will be “keep the law” or “overturn the law.” The state’s official voter information guide will include a list of a referendum’s top funders, and the ballot label will list supporters and opponents.

The law also allows referendum proponents to withdraw their measure from the ballot — which, as we’re already seeing, could lead to more backroom deals. On Monday, fast-food workers and the restaurant industry struck a deal on wage increases and workplace conditions. Those issues would otherwise have been decided at the ballot box because restaurant groups had qualified a 2024 referendum challenging a state law ushering in even more sweeping labor reforms.

These changes will make it harder for “concentrated special interests to silence and manipulate the voice of voters in our communities,” Assembly Majority Leader Isaac Bryan, the Los Angeles Democrat who authored the law, said in a statement.

That may prove true. But if lawmakers really wanted to limit the influence of special interests, they would reintroduce ballot language reform bills at the start of the next legislative session in January and pass them with an urgency clause so they would take effect before the November 2024 general election.

Ensuring voters see ballot measure titles and summaries free from political interference is the bare minimum reform needed.

Sadly, we aren’t holding our breath.


https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion...-ballot-measure-reform-democrats-18360315.php
 
This is from a progressive site but is just one person's analysis. But offers good insight into the question of direct democracy and the best way to do it.




California’s ballot initiative system isn’t working. How do we fix it?

Is direct democracy delivering on its promise?


I live in California. And three weeks before the election, the people in my quarantine bubble sat down in our living room for a nine-hour research project: figuring out how to vote.

Not for our elected representatives or for president, but on kidney dialysis regulations and stem-cell medical research funding and whether to uphold a law passed by the legislature replacing cash bail with a risk assessment system — and nine more propositions after those. My ballot was six pages long, many of them on issues I’d never thought about before — and, after a few frustrating hours figuring out how to vote, will never think about again.

Direct democracy can be a profound and important tool for political change, and 2020 had many examples of that. In several states, voters decriminalized drugs from marijuana to mushrooms — sending a powerful message to lawmakers that their constituents are done with the war on drugs. I’ve written in past years that voters are way ahead of state legislatures on banning animal cruelty. America’s electoral system definitely benefits from a place for voters to directly weigh in on issues. (My colleague Sigal Samuel has a rundown of the ballot initiatives that we should cheer in today’s edition of the Future Perfect newsletter. Subscribe!)

But what it doesn’t benefit from is a system like California’s, where ballots get padded out and weighted down with unclearly written ballot propositions on a dozen niche issues. Many people have been frustrated by these problems on their ballots, but California — where voters have been asked to simultaneously entertain abolishing and expediting the death penalty, to weigh dueling propositions about plastic bags, to advise the state legislature to overturn US Supreme Court decisions (it cannot do that), and now, on two different occasions, to weigh in on the proper running of dialysis clinics — leads the pack.

A system that funnels lots of issues, both big and small, directly to the voters leads to bad policy judgments, because under-informed voters don’t have time to research and form opinions on all the issues. It leads to a handicapped legislature that can’t do its job, because large sections of state law are untouchable. (In California, for instance, the legislature has to send many propositions to voters because other propositions have prohibited them from legislating directly.) When a voter-approved initiative is unclearly worded, it can cause years of uncertainty — because the issue can’t easily be sent back to the voters to adjust the wording.

But just because how we run ballot propositions today is a problem doesn’t mean we have to give them up altogether. There is a way we can make direct democracy work.

How ballot initiatives work

Let’s say that you dislike the work your state legislature is doing. In 26 US states and Washington, DC, you have the power to ask voters to pass laws themselves through a ballot initiative.

There are, broadly, three categories of ballot initiatives available in the states that have a citizen initiative process. In the first, citizens draw up a proposed law and put it on the ballot. If other citizens approve it, it becomes a law. In the second, citizens who disapprove of a law the legislature passed put it on the ballot to try to repeal it (called a “veto referendum”). In the third, citizens propose, and vote on, a change to the state constitution.

Some states only allow some of these types of initiatives, and some don’t allow citizen initiatives at all. Maryland and New Mexico, for example, only allow veto referendums; Utah, Wyoming, Washington, Maine, Alaska, and Idaho allow citizens to put forth initiatives, but not constitutional amendments. Illinois, Mississippi, and Florida allow constitutional amendments but not initiatives.

The details of the process to put a new law, a veto referendum, or a constitutional amendment on the ballot varies from state to state, but in general, proponents file their proposed initiative with the state and then start collecting signatures for it. If they collect enough signatures, it goes on the ballot for the next statewide election. If it wins over enough voters at the election, it becomes a law.

Lots of important work has gotten done through ballot initiatives. But in many ways, laws passed via initiative are more problematic than laws passed by the legislature. Because they are not written by professional legislators, they are often unclearly written; many voters report being confused about what ballot initiatives they voted on will do. Many ballot measures are misleadingly structured so that a “no” vote represents a big, confusing change to the law, while a “yes” vote does nothing. There is fierce political fighting about initiatives are summarized on the ballot — a process that is supposed to be apolitical, but sometimes isn’t.

And while initiatives were meant to empower grassroots political movements, the system to put an initiative on the ballot is much easier for large lobbying groups to navigate, and special interest groups drive many initiatives.

In some states, like California, the sheer number of initiatives is starting to get out of hand, which worsens all of the other problems with ballot initiatives, as it’s easier for voters to see through one misleading proposition than through 10.

Lessons from California

Every state does direct democracy in a different way.

But California reliably has one of the longest ballots. In 2016, there were 17 statewide initiatives. The voter guide mailed to all voters to explain them was 224 pages long.

In 2020, the threshold for initiatives to make the ballot was substantially higher (the threshold is set based on turnout in the most recent governor’s race, and 2018 turnout set records) and there weren’t as many. But voters still weighed in on bonds to pay for stem cell research, property tax changes, a repeal to the state ban on affirmative action, restoring voting rights for convicted felons, allowing 17-year-olds who will be 18 in November to vote in primaries, more property tax changes, changes to criminal sentencing, allowing rent control in more parts of the state, labor policies for ride-hailing apps, dialysis clinic regulations, a new data privacy law, and abolishing cash bail.

Those were just the statewide initiatives; voters also considered many city and countywide local initiatives. That’s 12 statewide initiatives, more than anywhere else in the country (though Colorado voters came close, with 11.)

California also had by far the most spending aimed at changing minds on ballot initiatives: $708 million in contributions, compared to $121 million in the next most-contested state. Across all 50 states, 120 ballot measures were decided on Election Day.

California’s initiative process permits all three types of resolutions (initiatives to create a new state law, initiatives to veto a state law passed through the legislative process, and initiatives to amend the constitution) and makes it much easier than many states to put an initiative on the ballot — requiring just 5 percent of the number of voters who voted in the gubernatorial race in the most recent election to put an initiative on the ballot. Many states require 10 percent of the number of votes cast for governor — and many states have competitive elections for governors.

California’s gubernatorial races are almost never competitive and often have very low turnout, which depresses the signature requirement further. In 2016, only 365,880 signatures were needed (in a state with 40 million people and 18 million registered voters) to add an initiative to the ballot. (High 2018 turnout raised the bar somewhat, but as a percentage of total population, it’s still one of America’s lowest thresholds.)

Finally, it’s not just easier for laws to make it onto the ballot; it’s also easier for them to pass. In many states amending the constitution requires a supermajority. In Florida, for example, which amended its constitution this week to raise the minimum wage, a 60 percent majority is required. In California, propositions including those amending the state constitution pass if they get more than 50 percent of the vote.

California was one of the first states that allowed citizen-driven ballot initiatives, and at first, ballot initiatives were sparse. As collecting signatures became easier, the number of California propositions has spiked — especially in the last few decades. As a result, the initiative system “has grown quite unwieldy and crude in ways that have perverted the initial vision,” historian William Deverell at the University of Southern California said this fall.

How to make direct democracy work

For all of the drawbacks of ballot initiatives, the variety of different approaches to propositions in different states is a great thing — one of the best examples of the state system’s function as “laboratories of democracy.”

We now have some results from those laboratories of democracy, and they suggest that the initiative system works best when there are a manageable number of initiatives on the ballot at election time. Voter participation is higher, and voters are more able to focus their attention on a handful of meaningful, high-value issues: Should we legalize marijuana? Should we reenfranchise people who have been convicted of a crime and served their sentence? Should we change how our state votes?

When voters are snowed under with nearly a dozen propositions, including many on highly specific niche issues like kidney dialysis regulation that they’re unequipped to evaluate, participation drops, and the results become more strongly predicted by which side spent the most money — probably because if voters don’t have time to look things up, they’re more likely to go with what they saw on TV. The impressive successes of ballot initiatives against the war on drugs this year should have governments in every state thinking about how they can best use ballot initiatives to their full potential.

For the 14 states that don’t allow any ballot initiatives, that might mean rethinking that. But for the states that allow ballot initiatives with a very low threshold, and see low participation and high voter confusion as a result, it means rethinking that, too. Promising proposals include raising the signature threshold, capping the number of propositions on the ballot, and restricting “counter-propositions” — conflicting laws on the ballot at the same time.

Direct democracy is a part of our system because of a belief that voters deserve a direct say in how their state is run. The best implementation gives voters a few highly meaningful choices well worth their time. If we can’t manage that, we’re not empowering voters — we’re burdening them.


https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/...allot-initiative-proposition-direct-democracy

There’s your problem, “365,880 signatures were needed (in a state with 40 million people and 18 million registered voters), too easy to get something on a State ballot, f*cking liberals
 
I find that on most ballot propositions, the judgement of the people is at least as good, and often better, than elected representatives.

I think you need elected representatives for things like enacting government budgets and foreign policy.

Interesting perspective, let the Government run the Government, and the people decide via ballot important issues, but that can get a little tricky when it comes to deciding what is important enough to earn a state wide ballot, one persons issue isn’t another’s
 
Interesting perspective, let the Government run the Government, and the people decide via ballot important issues, but that can get a little tricky when it comes to deciding what is important enough to earn a state wide ballot, one persons issue isn’t another’s
I think citizens are perfectly capable of voting on what their values are.

You need legislators obviously for the nitty gritty of budgets, foreign policy, oversight.

Ballot propositions in California have to reach a certain threshold number of signatures before they qualify. Even then, they can be challenged in court if they are afoul of civil rights or existing statute.
 
Back
Top