This country needs referendums in a big way.

[StageLeft]

You know, every once in a while a country such as Canada or many others will pose a big issue to the general populous. No electoral vote or anything else, simply a big cross-country popular vote. 50.01% one day decides it. I think it would help to avoid things like a person getting into office by 40% of popular vote, for instance, and managing to squeeze through with their slight majority congress something that most of the people do not actually want. These is not micro-management and countries generally keep these to big issues.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
You know, every once in a while a country such as Canada or many others will pose a big issue to the general populous. No electoral vote or anything else, simply a big cross-country popular vote. 50.01% one day decides it. I think it would help to avoid things like a person getting into office by 40% of popular vote, for instance, and managing to squeeze through with their slight majority congress something that most of the people do not actually want. These is not micro-management and countries generally keep these to big issues.

A big issue with that is election exhaustion. Participation in government is inversely proportional to frequency of elections. Every 6 years is actually optimal, with 4 still being nearly as good. At 2 (like we have federally) you see a major impact from exhaustion. Add to it frequent local elections and you've got a recipe for democratic failure.

 

[Lemon law]

One has to be very careful about such referendums. In general, California is the US State that makes the most use of the device. And the language of the referendum alos becomes super critical because politician have been know to take very large license from vague language.

I somewhat maintain the just about everyone has the same set of pie in the sky it would be a better world if goals. The differences are in exactly what means are used to achieve those goals. And even if its possible to achieve that 50.01% consensus, it does not take that big of a set of the violently opposed to send an entire nation into chaos. A very big part of the US constitution deals with protecting the rights of minorities from exactly those a 50.1% majority rules knee jerk compulsion.

But I also think skoorb has rightly done an excellent job with this post on touching on larger issues about governance in other countries. While the US constitution has been a model for countless other countries, nearly all have failed to make it work. And the dominant democratic system is the parliamentary system where the government falls when a majority of legislators no longer have confidence in the existing government. And other than Presidential impeachment and sub sequential conviction, the US system has no equivalent mechanism.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Referendums are very democratic, and therefore will never happen.

 

[fskimospy]

Referendums are extremely democratic, they happen constantly in California, and they are a terrible idea. Maybe if you were to limit it to a single issue that would include large scale education about the issue beforehand, along with clearly defined and worded legislation that everyone could understand then maybe.... MAYBE they would be okay.

Anyone who has voted in one election in California knows why the proposition/referendum system has a lot of problems. I'm fairly sure that simple confusion among the voters is responsible for the passage/defeat of several propositions.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Referendums are extremely democratic, they happen constantly in California, and they are a terrible idea. Maybe if you were to limit it to a single issue that would include large scale education about the issue beforehand, along with clearly defined and worded legislation that everyone could understand then maybe.... MAYBE they would be okay.

Anyone who has voted in one election in California knows why the proposition/referendum system has a lot of problems. I'm fairly sure that simple confusion among the voters is responsible for the passage/defeat of several propositions.

I believe there should be much examination of the wording and potential consequences (intended and not) to the nth degree. MA has referendums, and half the time it's hard to tell if you are voting for a thing or against it. Any national referendum MUST be clearly detailed and worded, but in principle I haven't anything against them.

 

[Lemon law]

We indeed have a constitutional process for such referendums which is better called a constitutional amendment. A rather high hill to climb and a processs that takes years.

Then we have polls, polls, and more polls that may or may not be a reliable snapshot of national mood at a given time.

 

[StageLeft]

A big issue with that is election exhaustion.

I think people will step in on important issues. Perhaps so much seems to ride on selection of president because after that the voters are stuck for four years with little recourse on major issues. I'll take a state issue recently as an exampe: Spitzer's license plan. He was pushing ahead despite 3/4 of people not wanting it. It was important enough for a referendum (maybe), but if it was, it would have been shut down immediately. Another would be that last amnest plan for immigration. It went into congress, but why not give the people a shot? They'd have killed it, too instead of it not dying by as large a margin as the populous would have had it.

I'm fairly sure that simple confusion among the voters is responsible for the passage/defeat of several propositions.

But this applies to ALL elections. Perhaps California bothers you because it gives you continual examples of this (as it would be). Or maybe they have too many referndums. I believe Canada has them only every several years. Of course there's a big PR campaign, as there is for presidency, and I imagine a lot of people vote based on little reason or intelligence of an issue (as they do for president, many don't know a damn thing but vote with aplomb nonetheless).

We indeed have a constitutional process for such referendums which is better called a constitutional amendment.

This is like the electoral system, though; it requires 2/3 of Congress, right? So in the extreme only a couple hundred people in the entire country could be for it and 300 million against and it would go through.

 

[magomago]

Referendums can be easily taken advantage of. Just come to CA - Any bloody thing our legislature is too chicken to decide gets tossed up into a referendum so they can absolve responsiblity from it by claiming "well we put it to a vote of the average person!".

Guess what happens? You have competing groups who put out their propaganda to where its so difficult to figure out what is true and what is not. Coupled with "mission goals" that are ridiculously similar, and you have a confused public that probably is not positive on what they are voting on. Even for myself, who tries to be involved with politics, I can get muddled and go "uhh wtff?" and simply end of abstaining on a proposition.

OH LOL I just went back to read these posts and people already brought in CA 😉 Obviously this is a huge issue...of course I have nothing wrong with them as well, but as they stand its too easy to take advantage of, and very difficult to try to enact some kind of regulations to try to control it without severly affecting the ability of citizens to mobilize and advertise their positions for or against it.

 

[IronWing]

In Arizona also, the referendum process is broken. If citizens put forth a popular ballot initiative that some other citizens don't like (often this opposing group is the State Legislature) the opposing side will place a similar, but watered down, initiative on the ballot in order to confuse the voters. When the voters are confused they tend to vote no.

 

[sandorski]

Americans Elect too many people as it is. I like the idea, but when you Vote for everyone from the US President to the Local Dog Catcher(exaggerated for effect) piling Referendums on top is just too much. Trying to select the right person for the various jobs is just too demanding on a populace that's busy every waking moment, don't make them decide major issues regularly as well. That's why you elect all those Politicians, to make decisions.

 

[Craig234]

Referendums are a double edged sword.

When the legislature is bought off by special interests, they're a way around the corruption for the public to override them.

When the legislature is not bought off, it's a way for the special interest to buy a vote they can't get through the system, because the system is working. It's absolutely possible to get terrible referendums with big budgets passed. Not always, but sometimes.

The history of referendums in CA was that they were introduced by a progressive governor, Hiram Johnson, a century ago, and they've been used both ways.

We hurt our state a lot with the referendum prop 13, a way for business to slash their property taxes - and leaving the state unable to fund things that had made it great.

 

[quikah]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

We indeed have a constitutional process for such referendums which is better called a constitutional amendment.

This is like the electoral system, though; it requires 2/3 of Congress, right? So in the extreme only a couple hundred people in the entire country could be for it and 300 million against and it would go through.

No. The 2/3 vote in congress is only to propose the amendment. Once that passes it must be approved by 3/4 of the states.

 

[techs]

Completely ill advised.
Problems:

Who decides what referendums? Is it private citizens who get enough signatures on a petition? Set the bar too low and you have hundreds or thousands of referendums. Too high and only the rich can offer referndums. Allow state legislatures to set referendums? Presumably the majority will pass laws that would do exactly what the referendums would do. And if they can't get the votes to pass the laws, they can't get the votes to pass a referendum.

The wording of referendums is, presumably, set by those who have the power to call for a referendum. Take a controversial issue like abortion. If you had a referndum to outlaw abortion it might fail if you don't make exceptions for rape or incest. So which do you bring to a vote? Or do you make it a 30 part referendum with 30 different specific criteria?

What about the uneducated masses? Not to be an elitist, but if someone put forth a referendum to take all the assets of the oil companie, rich people etc and give everyone making less than 100,000 a year a 10,000 dollar check, it might pass. So whatever criteria you have for referendums will invariably prevent the masses from really getting to vote on wha tthey want.

The whole ideas of the Founding Fathers was for a Republic. Where educated and intelligent people would serve their constituents and their Country by making the best decisions they could in representing the people. The Founding Fathers were afraid of the masses of people becoming too directly involved in that they would have neither the knowledge, education nor temperment to make sound judgements.

The real problem is that rich people and corporations have hijacked the electoral process and our representitives no longer represent the people, but the rich and corporations.
Referendums ain't gonna change that.

 

[Genx87]

The founding fathers formed the govt the way they did for a reason. Direct Democracy in the past has failed, and given the opportunity it will fail again in the future.

Referendums are a form of direct democracy. If you want something changed on the national level there is a sytem we have gone away from. It is called a constitutional amendment.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Referendums are a double edged sword.

Yeah... either the people vote for things you agree with, or they don't. Double-edged sword indeed :roll:

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Craig234
Referendums are a double edged sword.

Yeah... either the people vote for things you agree with, or they don't. Double-edged sword indeed :roll:

That's not what the term means. I explained clearly what it does mean, and you cut that out in your editing of the quote.

Your post adds nothing, and merely distorts my post, so why did you bother to waste our time?