5 ms·

Today I learned: https://ballotpedia.org/Legislative_alteration https://ballotpedia.org/Legislative_alteration It still seems like California's process is the

Today I learned: https://ballotpedia.org/Legislative_alteration https://ballotpedia.org/Legislative_alteration It still seems like California's process is the least democratic. It allows voters of the past to institute laws that are much, much more difficult to change than other laws. The "Supermajority approval for ... years following" that North Dakota and Washington follow, or expiring the protection of the initiative from amendment automatically after some number of years seems appropriate.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
coliveira 5y ago
The US political system is full of anti-democratic laws. California is not the first and, unfortunately, no the last state to have such laws.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  If we're defining anti-democratic laws like this: > It allows voters of the past to institute laws that are much, much more difficult to change than other laws. then having a constitution is a pure exercise in anti-democracy. Are we calling that "unfortunate" now?
  - kergonath 5y ago
    Well, a constitution can be anti-democratic if it cannot be changed by the people. Loads of dictatorships and single-party oligarchies have undemocratic constitutions. In true democracies the constitution can be changed, and is regularly. So basically, being a democracy and having a constitution are orthogonal.
    - thaumasiotes 5y ago
      That is the opposite position to "having a constitution is anti-democratic", which is the position taken by AaronFriel's comment. > Loads of dictatorships and single-party oligarchies have undemocratic constitutions. Ehh... my impression was that the bigger problem, from a standard American perspective, is that loads of dictatorships have constitutions which are everything American evangelical democracy dreams of, but which they aren't too concerned with adhering to.
    - zajio1am 5y ago
      > Loads of dictatorships and single-party oligarchies have undemocratic constitutions. In many cases the issue is opposite. Many populist autocrats abuse democracies with constitution that can be changed too easily, so after one big win in election they can dismantle all checks and balances and independent institutions in the country.
azernik 5y ago
They're more difficult to change only in that they have to go through the same process by which they were instituted - a ballot initiative. The difficulty of repealing awful past propositions like Prop 13 is down to public opinion, not procedural limitations.
- hellbannedguy 5y ago
  Here we go again on Prop 13. If you lived through the madness, you would understand. (I can guarantee you were born after, I'm Mad as Hell!, by Howard Jarvis. Every year taxes went up. Every year politicians squandered away that money on pet projects. Middle class residents feared tax day. I saw my dad cry once, and yes it was when he opened that tax bill from the county. Prop 13 is the only real thing, in my lifetime, that truly helped the middleclass, and poor. Yes---things were generally better 30-40 years ago, but don't blame our messed up society on prop 13. Their are days where I feel we need to get rid of prop 13 for a few years, and let those that weren't born see what happens? I have never heard anyone who lived through that time criticize prop 13, with the exception of a college professor trying to reel in young students during a lecture, or an upcoming politician trying to get young voters. Instead of ragging on a prop that helps low/middleclass tax payers; I wish the young would go after how the wealthy around the world are buying up our homes. With a phone call, or email, and then have the gall to leave them vacant. To the young professional programmers. Let's be honest. You will be most likely shown the door around 50. If you happened to buy a house, you will eventually cherish prop 13.
  - pclmulqdq 5y ago
    In most places other than California, the problem of greedy politicians who raise taxes and spend the money on corruption and crap is to vote out the politicians. If you feel unsafe at tax time, your elected leaders should feel unsafe on election day. It's really telling that Californians instead passed a terrible market-distorting ballot measure (which incentives hedge funds to buy properties to avoid the tax being readjusted again and pushes up prices so that nobody other than a hedge fund could afford them). If you're worried about affordability of houses, prop 13 (combined with NIMBYism and restrictive zoning laws in cities) is one of the main reasons why they are unaffordable. It sounds like it didn't even register to Californians that maybe they should have voted for the other guy for a little while.
jonas21 5y ago
> It still seems like California's process is the least democratic. Did you mean the most democratic? California's process means the legislature can't override the will of the people -- only the people can do that, through another ballot initiative. I'm not saying it's necessarily a good thing, but California ballot initiatives are about as close to direct democracy as you can get.
- specialist 5y ago
  > Did you mean the most democratic? Insert sound of my head imploding. Even "democracy" is ambiguous. Representative vs direct vs participatory vs ... We have to consider more than just the voting method. Power relationships, structure of discourse, processes for modification, ad nauseum. My meager best effort at divining the core essence of "democracy" is "consent of the governed". Weak sauce, I know.
- MichaelZuo 5y ago
  It seems like the parent has an understanding of the term quite different from the norm.
  - RuggedPineapple 5y ago
    How? That's been the understanding for hundreds of years and derives farther back then even our own country. It has its roots in English constitutional law and the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty, one of the main tenets of which is that no previous act is allowed to bind the hands of a future parliament, to do so thwarts the democratic will of the people expressed by who they chose to elect.
    - MichaelZuo 5y ago
      To clarify I mean this comment ‘It still seems like California's process is the least democratic.’ Which is a bizarre way of looking at referendums, as it would imply that referendums over the entire voting population are less legitimate than bills enacted by a representative body.
- 5y ago
renewiltord 5y ago
You mean “the most democratic”. It is direct democracy in rare instances to overrule the indirect democracy. The people speak and only the people can undo what they make.
pclmulqdq 5y ago
The interesting question is whether voters can pass laws that are straight up unconstitutional. The courts are an important check on the power of legislators, but if they don't apply to the people, there may be some really interesting ballot initiatives in the future. CA's ballot initiative process is democracy taken too far. It is close the point where democracy becomes the tyranny of the mob.
- arcbyte 5y ago
  It's a simple answer: they can't. The constitution lays out the process for accomplishing things that everyone "agrees" to by living under its jurisdiction. If you want to accomplish something unconstitutional, you can, you just have to first amend the constitution.
sokoloff 5y ago
The word 'democracy' has its origins in the Greek language. It combines two shorter words: 'demos' meaning whole citizen living within a particular city-state and 'kratos' meaning power or rule. It seems like a direct ballot initiative is no less democratic than an indirect representative making laws to govern the people. (I think it’s more, but it surely is not less.) You can say you don’t like a given initiative; it’s much harder to argue that the process is undemocratic.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

coliveira 5y ago

The US political system is full of anti-democratic laws. California is not the first and, unfortunately, no the last state to have such laws.

thaumasiotes 5y ago
If we're defining anti-democratic laws like this: > It allows voters of the past to institute laws that are much, much more difficult to change than other laws. then having a constitution is a pure exercise in anti-democracy. Are we calling that "unfortunate" now?
- kergonath 5y ago
  Well, a constitution can be anti-democratic if it cannot be changed by the people. Loads of dictatorships and single-party oligarchies have undemocratic constitutions. In true democracies the constitution can be changed, and is regularly. So basically, being a democracy and having a constitution are orthogonal.
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    That is the opposite position to "having a constitution is anti-democratic", which is the position taken by AaronFriel's comment. > Loads of dictatorships and single-party oligarchies have undemocratic constitutions. Ehh... my impression was that the bigger problem, from a standard American perspective, is that loads of dictatorships have constitutions which are everything American evangelical democracy dreams of, but which they aren't too concerned with adhering to.
  - zajio1am 5y ago
    > Loads of dictatorships and single-party oligarchies have undemocratic constitutions. In many cases the issue is opposite. Many populist autocrats abuse democracies with constitution that can be changed too easily, so after one big win in election they can dismantle all checks and balances and independent institutions in the country.

azernik 5y ago

They're more difficult to change only in that they have to go through the same process by which they were instituted - a ballot initiative. The difficulty of repealing awful past propositions like Prop 13 is down to public opinion, not procedural limitations.

hellbannedguy 5y ago
Here we go again on Prop 13. If you lived through the madness, you would understand. (I can guarantee you were born after, I'm Mad as Hell!, by Howard Jarvis. Every year taxes went up. Every year politicians squandered away that money on pet projects. Middle class residents feared tax day. I saw my dad cry once, and yes it was when he opened that tax bill from the county. Prop 13 is the only real thing, in my lifetime, that truly helped the middleclass, and poor. Yes---things were generally better 30-40 years ago, but don't blame our messed up society on prop 13. Their are days where I feel we need to get rid of prop 13 for a few years, and let those that weren't born see what happens? I have never heard anyone who lived through that time criticize prop 13, with the exception of a college professor trying to reel in young students during a lecture, or an upcoming politician trying to get young voters. Instead of ragging on a prop that helps low/middleclass tax payers; I wish the young would go after how the wealthy around the world are buying up our homes. With a phone call, or email, and then have the gall to leave them vacant. To the young professional programmers. Let's be honest. You will be most likely shown the door around 50. If you happened to buy a house, you will eventually cherish prop 13.
- pclmulqdq 5y ago
  In most places other than California, the problem of greedy politicians who raise taxes and spend the money on corruption and crap is to vote out the politicians. If you feel unsafe at tax time, your elected leaders should feel unsafe on election day. It's really telling that Californians instead passed a terrible market-distorting ballot measure (which incentives hedge funds to buy properties to avoid the tax being readjusted again and pushes up prices so that nobody other than a hedge fund could afford them). If you're worried about affordability of houses, prop 13 (combined with NIMBYism and restrictive zoning laws in cities) is one of the main reasons why they are unaffordable. It sounds like it didn't even register to Californians that maybe they should have voted for the other guy for a little while.

jonas21 5y ago

> It still seems like California's process is the least democratic. Did you mean the most democratic? California's process means the legislature can't override the will of the people -- only the people can do that, through another ballot initiative. I'm not saying it's necessarily a good thing, but California ballot initiatives are about as close to direct democracy as you can get.

specialist 5y ago
> Did you mean the most democratic? Insert sound of my head imploding. Even "democracy" is ambiguous. Representative vs direct vs participatory vs ... We have to consider more than just the voting method. Power relationships, structure of discourse, processes for modification, ad nauseum. My meager best effort at divining the core essence of "democracy" is "consent of the governed". Weak sauce, I know.
MichaelZuo 5y ago
It seems like the parent has an understanding of the term quite different from the norm.
- RuggedPineapple 5y ago
  How? That's been the understanding for hundreds of years and derives farther back then even our own country. It has its roots in English constitutional law and the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty, one of the main tenets of which is that no previous act is allowed to bind the hands of a future parliament, to do so thwarts the democratic will of the people expressed by who they chose to elect.
  - MichaelZuo 5y ago
    To clarify I mean this comment ‘It still seems like California's process is the least democratic.’ Which is a bizarre way of looking at referendums, as it would imply that referendums over the entire voting population are less legitimate than bills enacted by a representative body.
5y ago

renewiltord 5y ago

You mean “the most democratic”. It is direct democracy in rare instances to overrule the indirect democracy. The people speak and only the people can undo what they make.

pclmulqdq 5y ago

The interesting question is whether voters can pass laws that are straight up unconstitutional. The courts are an important check on the power of legislators, but if they don't apply to the people, there may be some really interesting ballot initiatives in the future. CA's ballot initiative process is democracy taken too far. It is close the point where democracy becomes the tyranny of the mob.

arcbyte 5y ago
It's a simple answer: they can't. The constitution lays out the process for accomplishing things that everyone "agrees" to by living under its jurisdiction. If you want to accomplish something unconstitutional, you can, you just have to first amend the constitution.

sokoloff 5y ago

The word 'democracy' has its origins in the Greek language. It combines two shorter words: 'demos' meaning whole citizen living within a particular city-state and 'kratos' meaning power or rule. It seems like a direct ballot initiative is no less democratic than an indirect representative making laws to govern the people. (I think it’s more, but it surely is not less.) You can say you don’t like a given initiative; it’s much harder to argue that the process is undemocratic.