Why I vote 'NO' on Proposition **

[Chewie_jrc]

So I just got my nifty little voting pamphlet in the mail from the California Republic and the City and County of San Francisco (its longer than War & Peace btw)....oh my god.

Am I the only one who thinks "pure" or "direct" democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy) is a bad idea? How have we devolved into such mob rule?

When I try to discuss this with people I am quickly branded as a facist or am told "what, would you rather have a tyrat ruling?". Really?? What is the difference (other than the obvious) between one person or a group of people creating and enforcing their particular brand of justice/'equality'/government?

What ever happened to a having a group of intrinsic rights we are all entitled too that the government was sworn to protect? Why is government now wielded as a mechanism for enacting a particular individual's (or group's) idea of utopia?

Self-righteousness is more dangerous than self interest IMHO....

[Jamie J. Skibicki]

which propostition?

[Smiler Grogan]

You need to give some context to your rant.

[Chewie_jrc]

All of them.

The idea that you can mass a group of people and enact a law because a majority of people agree with you doesnt sit right with me. Sounds nice in theory I suppose...

[Scott_Robison]

Chewie, last I heard we live in a representative democracy, which means we elect people to make decisions and pass laws for us. However, I understand you Goldenstater's can directly pass certain budget items which cannot be modified by the legislature, thus creating many of your state's budget woes, and contributing to your reputation as ungovernable.

[Raskolnikov]

Chewie, last I heard we live in a representative democracy, which means we elect people to make decisions and pass laws for us. However, I understand you Goldenstater's can directly pass certain budget items which cannot be modified by the legislature, thus creating many of your state's budget woes, and contributing to your reputation as ungovernable.

We can do a heck of a lot more than just pass certain budget items. And, unfortunately, because of the initiative process (in which props get put on the ballot through petition), we tend to get a number of rather stupid ballot propositions every single election. It really is a joke much of the time.

[Chewie_jrc]

Chewie, last I heard we live in a representative democracy, which means we elect people to make decisions and pass laws for us. However, I understand you Goldenstater's can directly pass certain budget items which cannot be modified by the legislature, thus creating many of your state's budget woes, and contributing to your reputation as ungovernable.

Not only budget items, but actual laws. Sometime this power is wielded for good...other times, it is not. For instance, we the people made it illegal for gays to marry. Whether or not your personal morals agree with that or not is irrelevant. The proposition could very well have been "it is now illegal for *insert minority here* to *insert activity here*".

[Chewie_jrc]

We can do a heck of a lot more than just pass certain budget items. And, unfortunately, because of the initiative process (in which props get put on the ballot through petition), we tend to get a number of rather stupid ballot propositions every single election. It really is a joke much of the time.

Well put Rask. I try to be a good citizen and get up to speed on all of the props. However, I had to stop myself from sitting in the garage with the car running after reading just a few. It really hurts my head sometimes.

[bowdirk]

There is one on the CA ballot this year that was put there by PG&E (power company) by paying people to gather signatures.

Now they are spending millions to actually get people to vote for it...

Vote no on proposition 16, it is purely a PG&E scam/money grab.

Bowdirk

[drlvegas]

The US is a democratic republic.

California is ??????????????????

[TomC]

The multitudinous ballot initiatives in CA are usually poorly worded, poorly conceived measures whose ultimate effects are far from clear. They often carry titles that belie their real intent. Governing is a messy, nasty business and the failures of the legislature are numerous. However, I am not convinced that the CA model really works and the ballot initiatives in CA make governing the state and balancing the budget an impossible task. I'm with you on this one.

[Patrick]

What is the difference (other than the obvious) between one person or a group of people creating and enforcing their particular brand of justice/'equality'/government?

I don't know if this was just a rant or what but I think it's either a straw man or you just don't get what's going on with your governments.

To your question, "am I the only one who thinks 'pure' or 'direct' democracy is a bad idea," the obvious answer is no. The equally obvious fact, noticeably omitted from your question, is that direct democracy does not at all describe the process of government in California nor does it describe government anywhere in the US.

The constitution outlines a structure of government that allows for democratic self-determination with specific protections guaranteed to those governed. No self-respecting tyrant or mob bothers with such things as due process of law or adhering to a bill of rights. Even if a horrid law gets passed it's up for the police force to go out and enforce it and the courts to find that it's not in violation with any protections. Neither of those two things is a certainty and, in fact, judicial review is a pretty harsh mistress when it comes to sloppily written laws.

And to blame the ballot process for banning gay marriage is absurd. Most of the US has laws against gay marriage and off the top of my head I can only think of five states where ballot initiatives are really important -- Oregon, California, Arizona, Colorado, and North Dakota. This might speak volumes about the quality of our guaranteed protections and their evolving nature (intended or not) but gay marriage prohibitions speak more to bigots than ballots.

[gordonrumble]

The issues with democracy is that peoples' wants and needs are often contradictory, and people vote mostly for their wants. If you promise to cut taxes and increase services, people will vote for you. If you promise to cut services and raise taxes but start digging the country out of a debt hellhole, then you'll never get elected.

To a certain degree, representative democracy both addresses and worsens this problem. It addresses it by putting people into place who are theoretically competent and able to quietly make decisions that benefit the people. It does not solve it because often what the representative votes for is what's best for the representative, not his or her constituents.

Direct democracy is not a solution to this. People are uninformed and small-minded, and frankly have a very limited amount of time to devote to thinking about these issues. The solution is to have education and a cultural base that does not glorify instant gratification, small-mindedness and self-destructive hedonism (but is definitely pro-constructive hedonism), and then have people elect representatives who embody those ideals. The failures of both systems lie in the failure of the people to vote appropriately, but considering the time restrictions and variable capability of people to consider these issues, the best solution is still to elect a smart, dedicated representative who is willing to meet peoples' needs and then their wants.

[ColoWayno]

I understood your rant without even knowing the details.
I'm a Christian and have had enough of government telling people how to live. A true test of your belief in freedom is when you believe in it for other people who would choose a different path than your own.
I'm amazed and saddened at what they've done in other countries, Canada with their Speech Commissions, Holland for prosecuting people for making controversial films about Islam, England for jailing a man for preaching. These liberals have failed the test.

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/100833-groups-want-fcc-to-police-hate-speech
I'm sure we'll find some "nice" people to make sure all speech is good "cleaned up" speech.
Please ignore the ignorant, racist comments that were posted on that page. I trust you to know them when you see them.

[Chewie_jrc]

There is one on the CA ballot this year that was put there by PG&E (power company) by paying people to gather signatures.

Now they are spending millions to actually get people to vote for it...

Vote no on proposition 16, it is purely a PG&E scam/money grab.

Bowdirk

Ahhhh yes, the "People's Right to Vote Act". Essentially, that Prop was heavily funded by PG&E (northern california electric/gas utility) to create another speedbump for municipalities buying utility assets. San Francisco has been trying to buy PG&E assets in our territory pretty much every time ballot initiatives come around.

The bigger problem is underscored here. You gather enough money, pay people to go out and get signatures, then once you have a prop, you advertise the living fuck outta it with awesome propaganda ads. Yay!

[Chewie_jrc]

I don't know if this was just a rant or what but I think it's either a straw man or you just don't get what's going on with your governments.

To your question, "am I the only one who thinks 'pure' or 'direct' democracy is a bad idea," the obvious answer is no. The equally obvious fact, noticeably omitted from your question, is that direct democracy does not at all describe the process of government in California nor does it describe government anywhere in the US.

The constitution outlines a structure of government that allows for democratic self-determination with specific protections guaranteed to those governed. No self-respecting tyrant or mob bothers with such things as due process of law or adhering to a bill of rights. Even if a horrid law gets passed it's up for the police force to go out and enforce it and the courts to find that it's not in violation with any protections. Neither of those two things is a certainty and, in fact, judicial review is a pretty harsh mistress when it comes to sloppily written laws.

And to blame the ballot process for banning gay marriage is absurd. Most of the US has laws against gay marriage and off the top of my head I can only think of five states where ballot initiatives are really important -- Oregon, California, Arizona, Colorado, and North Dakota. This might speak volumes about the quality of our guaranteed protections and their evolving nature (intended or not) but gay marriage prohibitions speak more to bigots than ballots.

I'm not "blaming the ballot process for the banning of gay marriage". It does provide a very easy mechanism to push around groups that are smaller than you though.

I guess an even larger problem is how subject to interpretation the constitution is. I believe the term the politicans use is "living, breathing document". Guess it just depends who's doing the interpreting eh?

[StrongIslander,NY]

The US is a democratic republic.

California is ??????????????????

FUCKED! with a CAPITAL F Look at Texas 80 million or billion surplus? Calif, NY and NJ should look at states that have a surplus as a model.


pretty soon our collective federal taxes will be bailing states out--long live our anal friends the GREEKS! salad anyone?