(less) Power to the People
The fact that anti-gay activists in Massachusetts have turned in enough signatures to place an anti-gay ballot initiative on the 2008 ballot in that state is the hook upon which I will hang a long-overdue rant about how evil ballot initiatives and referenda are. Over half the states in the Union have some provision for initiatives, and by and large, they are almost always a bad idea. The fact that a common use of these things is to beat up on unpopular minorities (see: all the anti-gay initiatives) is not the only reason I oppose initiatives, but it certainly is a big part of it. However, I would feel the same way even if my side ended up winning most elections. After all, there are plenty of cases where the side I support does end up winning (including stem cell research in California, smoking in Washington, and gay rights in Maine to name three recent wins).
Initiatives are a subversion of the way a republican system of government is supposed to work. The idea is that we elect representatives who will govern for us, representing "we the people" in a deliberative and thoughtful manner. Often this doesn't work, and the elected officials become corrupt, but that is why we have elections every two or four years. Initiatives are a form of popular democracy, which ends up being a "government of polls" and usually results in very bad policy. If we have to allow initiatives, the process could at least be corrected to overcome the two flaws which plague most states:
1. It's too easy to get an initiative on the ballot.
Right now, any crank with a million bucks can hire signature gatherers and manage to get any scheme on the ballot, where a bare majority adopts it. Initiatives should be very rare, and limited to matters of overwhelming public interest. If I were philosopher-king, I would require some astronomical amount of signatures to get an issue on the ballot, which would insure that only subjects with very strong public support and interest ever make it to the ballot. I would also not permit paid signature-gatherers. If the issue is so pressing that it has to be voted on, there will be enough volunteers to handle this task.
2. There's no significant barrier to constitutional changes via initiative
State constitutions exist to protect minority rights. Allowing a constitution to be amended via initiative process is asking for abuse. In some states, changing the constitution is farcically easy. For example, in California it takes a few hundred thousand signatures to get on the ballot and a simple majority to pass. At the minimum, the signature requirements should be drastically increased and the constitutional initiative should be required to win with a 2/3 margin to pass. Some states (like Kansas) only allow amendments when passed by 2/3 of the legislature, but then permit "ratification" by simple majority. It should be 2/3 for public votes as well on constitutional issues.
Of course, none of this will ever happen. Initaitives are too popular (and let's face it, entertaining) to be tinkered with much more then on the very edges. So what we have now will continue, and bad policy and minority-bashing will continue to be public sport...and thoughtful deliberation will be something rare enough to be a novelty.
The fact that anti-gay activists in Massachusetts have turned in enough signatures to place an anti-gay ballot initiative on the 2008 ballot in that state is the hook upon which I will hang a long-overdue rant about how evil ballot initiatives and referenda are. Over half the states in the Union have some provision for initiatives, and by and large, they are almost always a bad idea. The fact that a common use of these things is to beat up on unpopular minorities (see: all the anti-gay initiatives) is not the only reason I oppose initiatives, but it certainly is a big part of it. However, I would feel the same way even if my side ended up winning most elections. After all, there are plenty of cases where the side I support does end up winning (including stem cell research in California, smoking in Washington, and gay rights in Maine to name three recent wins).
Initiatives are a subversion of the way a republican system of government is supposed to work. The idea is that we elect representatives who will govern for us, representing "we the people" in a deliberative and thoughtful manner. Often this doesn't work, and the elected officials become corrupt, but that is why we have elections every two or four years. Initiatives are a form of popular democracy, which ends up being a "government of polls" and usually results in very bad policy. If we have to allow initiatives, the process could at least be corrected to overcome the two flaws which plague most states:
1. It's too easy to get an initiative on the ballot.
Right now, any crank with a million bucks can hire signature gatherers and manage to get any scheme on the ballot, where a bare majority adopts it. Initiatives should be very rare, and limited to matters of overwhelming public interest. If I were philosopher-king, I would require some astronomical amount of signatures to get an issue on the ballot, which would insure that only subjects with very strong public support and interest ever make it to the ballot. I would also not permit paid signature-gatherers. If the issue is so pressing that it has to be voted on, there will be enough volunteers to handle this task.
2. There's no significant barrier to constitutional changes via initiative
State constitutions exist to protect minority rights. Allowing a constitution to be amended via initiative process is asking for abuse. In some states, changing the constitution is farcically easy. For example, in California it takes a few hundred thousand signatures to get on the ballot and a simple majority to pass. At the minimum, the signature requirements should be drastically increased and the constitutional initiative should be required to win with a 2/3 margin to pass. Some states (like Kansas) only allow amendments when passed by 2/3 of the legislature, but then permit "ratification" by simple majority. It should be 2/3 for public votes as well on constitutional issues.
Of course, none of this will ever happen. Initaitives are too popular (and let's face it, entertaining) to be tinkered with much more then on the very edges. So what we have now will continue, and bad policy and minority-bashing will continue to be public sport...and thoughtful deliberation will be something rare enough to be a novelty.
posted by Mike at
3:26 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home