3 ms·
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-f
by akeefer 15y 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 15y agoIf 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.
- WiseWeasel 15y agoBTW, greenhouse gas emission limits and energy policy was the answer you were looking for. There was even a sound repudiation of an effort to subvert the initiative process in order to cancel out previous gains in this area, proving that the system can work as intended to help ensure the public good.