3 ms·

I'll preface this by saying I'm largely a supporter of the referendum process in my state of California, and I would be hesitant to give up the power it has giv

I'll preface this by saying I'm largely a supporter of the referendum process in my state of California, and I would be hesitant to give up the power it has given me. That's not to say I don't see some of the big problems caused by this system, though I'm not persuaded that the author has offered very practical or substantial solutions. "Initiatives should be far harder to introduce. They should be shorter and simpler, so that voters can actually understand them. They should state what they cost, and where that money is to come from. And, if successful, initiatives must be subject to amendment by the legislature." I disagree that initiatives should be harder to introduce. In the last election, I had friends volunteering to collect petition signatures for the legalization of marijuana initiative, and it was a struggle to coordinate an effort large enough to collect the required signatures, testing the limits of grassroots mobilization. If such a controversial topic as marijuana legalization, with its army of local proponents in California, struggled to motivate enough people to support a ballot initiative, then I must ask how difficult it would be to organize an effort focusing on more mundane topics which may be just as critical to our fiscal situation. I don't see how a limit on complexity could be determined or enforced, but I will agree that there is a lack of clear information on the likely ramifications of a given ballot initiative. A better solution here would be to have trusted 3rd parties providing assessments of various initiatives, perhaps a state-level equivalent to the Congressional Budget Office offering credible fiscal assessments. One major improvement might be for initiatives to go through a process of competitive runoff selection, where petition signatories could sign on to an overarching policy goal (which is pretty much the only information they're given before signing the petition in any case), such as the legalization of marijuana, and then would be able to select from a variety of different implementations of that policy goal, with the winning implementation getting all the petition signatures. One place I will agree with the author would be to allow our legislators a greater ability to amend these initiatives, and if we're unhappy with the way they exercise this power, we can always show them the door next election cycle (or just recall them if they really pissed us off). I wouldn't give up my initiative power without a fight, and I am strongly encouraged that an unpopular law is only a petition and referendum away from redress. It's not for nothing that California is the R&D center of this laboratory of democracy we lovingly call the US states, with the California initiative process leading the way on many social issues, which then spread to the rest of the country. We should be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water.

akeefer 16y ago
The problem is precisely that it's too difficult for grassroots volunteer groups to put measures on the ballot, while at the same time being too easy for well-funded private interests to get things on the ballot, which has resulted in the current distorted use of the initiative system. Most initiative signatures are not collected by volunteers, they're collected by paid signature gathering organizations. And that's the problem the article was getting at: that anyone with enough money can get an initiative on the ballot by paying people to collect signatures, and once something's on the ballot, they can spend enough money to try to persuade people to vote for it. As a result, rich people and organizations can effectively buy legislation, or even constitutional amendments. That's not how the initiative process was intended to be used, but that's what we've got. I'd also challenge you, if you're a fan of California's initiative system, to take a look at all the initiatives that have passed over the last 10 years or so. Now, remove the ones put on there by the state legislature (which is a lot of them), and of the remaining ones, ask yourself: how many of these represent a positive, populist change versus how many of them represent some corporate special interest or populist outrage attempting to do something that is more properly the responsibility of the legislature (like, in my opinion, the three-strikes law or sex-offender laws) or even just out-right discriminatory laws (like the various illegal immigration ones that have passed)? My personal calculus has been that the initiative process has, on balance, done more harm than good.
- WiseWeasel 16y ago
  If laws are truly discriminatory, then they should be challenged in court. I must agree with you that there is likely more harmful legislation coming out of this process than beneficial, but I think that is largely a result of a lack of honest communication, as well as a lack of follow-through on the part of participating citizens. I believe my proposed solution of having citizens sign petitions for an overarching policy goal, and then having them choose from a list of implementations under that goal, would do much to limit some of the more egregious manipulation of those signing petitions. People could sign a policy goal petition, providing a mailing address and email address, and once sufficient signatures are collected to get on the ballot, signatories would be sent a packet of competing initiatives to select from. The variant with the most votes gets all the petition signatures and gets on the ballot. This would give participating voters an opportunity to review what they're signing up for, and perhaps become more informed of various alternative proposals which would address the same putative issue. This will ultimately force special interests to fight on a more level playing field with competing interests.

akeefer 16y ago

The problem is precisely that it's too difficult for grassroots volunteer groups to put measures on the ballot, while at the same time being too easy for well-funded private interests to get things on the ballot, which has resulted in the current distorted use of the initiative system. Most initiative signatures are not collected by volunteers, they're collected by paid signature gathering organizations. And that's the problem the article was getting at: that anyone with enough money can get an initiative on the ballot by paying people to collect signatures, and once something's on the ballot, they can spend enough money to try to persuade people to vote for it. As a result, rich people and organizations can effectively buy legislation, or even constitutional amendments. That's not how the initiative process was intended to be used, but that's what we've got. I'd also challenge you, if you're a fan of California's initiative system, to take a look at all the initiatives that have passed over the last 10 years or so. Now, remove the ones put on there by the state legislature (which is a lot of them), and of the remaining ones, ask yourself: how many of these represent a positive, populist change versus how many of them represent some corporate special interest or populist outrage attempting to do something that is more properly the responsibility of the legislature (like, in my opinion, the three-strikes law or sex-offender laws) or even just out-right discriminatory laws (like the various illegal immigration ones that have passed)? My personal calculus has been that the initiative process has, on balance, done more harm than good.

WiseWeasel 16y ago
If laws are truly discriminatory, then they should be challenged in court. I must agree with you that there is likely more harmful legislation coming out of this process than beneficial, but I think that is largely a result of a lack of honest communication, as well as a lack of follow-through on the part of participating citizens. I believe my proposed solution of having citizens sign petitions for an overarching policy goal, and then having them choose from a list of implementations under that goal, would do much to limit some of the more egregious manipulation of those signing petitions. People could sign a policy goal petition, providing a mailing address and email address, and once sufficient signatures are collected to get on the ballot, signatories would be sent a packet of competing initiatives to select from. The variant with the most votes gets all the petition signatures and gets on the ballot. This would give participating voters an opportunity to review what they're signing up for, and perhaps become more informed of various alternative proposals which would address the same putative issue. This will ultimately force special interests to fight on a more level playing field with competing interests.