3 ms·

I would disagree. Voting out a person is mutually exclusive to changing laws and regulations. This is why the idea of voting someone out is supported by all par

I would disagree. Voting out a person is mutually exclusive to changing laws and regulations. This is why the idea of voting someone out is supported by all parties. Looks like change yet does not require the change to take effect. New representation is not required to override the previous laws and actions. Some states have binding resolution. This is where the anyone can go door to door asking for signatures. With enough signatures the resolution is placed on the ballot and the people can vote on. Passage forces representatives to change laws and requirements based on the wording of the resolution. Example would be Colorado requiring legalization of cannabis while overriding the elected politician that kept voting against the legislatively pushed legalization. Most states have non-binding resolution. This means you can go door to door and get signatures to place on the ballots for the people to vote on. The outcome of the vote has no power and is just means to perform a mass survey. Votes that pass binding resolutions are more equivocal to, "Representatives, you must do this". While non-binding resolutions are equivocal to, "Representatives, please please pretty please can you act upon our request, we beg of you". I would say in order to actually have checks and balance, the people must be the fourth section of government that can enact change. Ability to vote on a single issue instead of only being able to vote on a single person. In my opinion, having binding resolution reduces the need for protests and violence to enact change. And require politicians to work together versus being extremely polarized.

ModernMech 4y ago
You bring up some good points, and I agree broadly with your points about direct citizen action. But I think recent history has taught me that voting matters, and elections matter. People are getting what they voted for across the country, and I don't think there has been a point in recent history where that has been starker. A state like Colorado is often called "purple" because many issues are split down the middle there. So yeah, in some instances there's going to be a mismatch between the electorate and politicians. But at the same time, there's a big difference between e.g. California and Florida regarding how someone like me (LGBTQ) is perceived by the government. It's not direct citizen action holding the lions at bay in my state, it's the collective action of voting for representatives who don't pass legislation targeting us.

ModernMech 4y ago

You bring up some good points, and I agree broadly with your points about direct citizen action. But I think recent history has taught me that voting matters, and elections matter. People are getting what they voted for across the country, and I don't think there has been a point in recent history where that has been starker. A state like Colorado is often called "purple" because many issues are split down the middle there. So yeah, in some instances there's going to be a mismatch between the electorate and politicians. But at the same time, there's a big difference between e.g. California and Florida regarding how someone like me (LGBTQ) is perceived by the government. It's not direct citizen action holding the lions at bay in my state, it's the collective action of voting for representatives who don't pass legislation targeting us.