I know this is endlessly debated elsewhere so I'm not trying to conclude a meaningful discussion here, but, since HN has been an interesting and intellectual en

I know this is endlessly debated elsewhere so I'm not trying to conclude a meaningful discussion here, but, since HN has been an interesting and intellectual environment to discuss things.... (and I'm sure there are past threads on it) Lately (as in, the last 30 years) it feels like the original intent of the CA initiative process has been lost and has swayed the policies of a state back and forth / patched things haphazardly without real public understanding of the implications or tradeoffs. I mention this because a big aspect of Prop 22 was the specific disqualification of the legislature from modifying certain provisions of it (to prevent it being watered down or negated). 7/8 legislature vote required to change it! Why not just make it 99% vote at that point... And btw, part of the court's decision / explanation was that in CA jurisprudence, when an initiative has spoken on a certain topic or requirement, deference to the people's will is mandatory and cannot be circumvented by the legislature against the conditions set by the initiative. In fact that's a good aspect of initiatives. But: -- Initiatives need surprisingly few people to start them, and then it turns into a money-fueled marketing campaign that goes crazy, trying to sell people on very simplified arguments about major policy changes. And then the issue must be decided, there is no deferring it. Perhaps the days of when idealistic founders thought that initiatives would be debated clearly and carefully in the town square are anachronistically long gone, and that check is no longer effective. -- The public as a general group is asked to make big decisions on things that eventually turn into huge debt obligations, change to our fundamental government process, etc. without full understanding or discussion behind the longer term implications. And of course, since when has the general public been a good judge of fiscal restraint or future responsibility? Pitch a spending initiative the right way and of course it will be approved. $500M vs. $20B? Who cares. -- While the notion that the people themselves should be able to put forth legislation directly and override the legislature is admirable and in some circumstances very fitting that some questions go to the people, initiatives are being held on things that the legislature in fact should be the decider or deliberator of. Again, things that have budget impacts, specialized knowledge, etc needed. -- Initiatives are very bad at publicizing or making people aware of who benefits and who does not. And especially in the future. Initiatives never have a time limit to them, freezing the policy in place to solve a problem-at-one-time, but then they go on for decades with unintended aftermath. Prop 13 I'm looking at you. Anyway, this is all part of a larger (admittedly half-baked) theory I have about the problems democracies face when we don't have 4-5 major problems that everyone agrees on, but 200-300 first world problems where everyone thinks theirs is the most important. How is a democratic process to solve: which problems it should spend the time and energy to fix? I would love to know if any progress is being made in CA on the initiative and constitutional processes.