|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2008 : 12:46:15 [Permalink]
|
If you do not like them... start an initiative to change your states constitution. I think it would be a mistake.
The elected representatives have proven time and time again they are more then likely interested in their party platform, and not what the constituents want. Case and point.... initiatives that pass against the wishes of the part in power.
The argument is that the representatives are supposed to protect us from ourselves, not represent what we want? We don't want that... case and point./... arguably the most important job out their has been pandered to the parties and partisan politics, instead of with the learned folks of the electoral college....
Why is it important that I understand what the language of a single initiative is, if it is unimportant that the people running for election are full of shit?
Another argument is :"it's special interests and the citizenry needs to be protected from them, that these special interest groups are misleading folks? Well... hell, if that isn't the best damn argument for limiting suffrage for all elections, I challenge you to come up with a better one.
Don't like them, move to a state without them. Really don't like them, lead a charge for a constitutional amendment forbidding the states the power, and forcing the de facto removal of them from the individual state constitutions. More power for the Feds... that's what we need... Who needs a state government anyway....
|
The Circus of Carnage... because you should be able to deal with politicians like you do pissant noobs. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 11/06/2008 : 17:49:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Original_Intent
The argument is that the representatives are supposed to protect us from ourselves, not represent what we want? We don't want that... |
How would a representative who polls his constituency on every issue and then votes as his constituents want differ in any substantial way from a pure democracy (mob rule)? Why bother having representatives in such a case?
Ideally, candidates are supposed to tell us how they will vote on various issues, we choose one based upon those promises, and then trust them to actually vote that way without asking us all how to vote over and over again. The media tends to report back to us how our representatives are voting, so that when their terms are up, we can keep them if they've been making good on their promises, or vote them out if they have betrayed our trust.
Perhaps referenda are a fine way for representatives to say, "this isn't something that we made promises about, so you fine citizens can make this decision." But should they be a way for a small group of citizens to say, "our representatives refuse to vote the way we like on this particular issue, but instead of voting in representatives for us, we're just going to make this a law without them?" |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 11/06/2008 : 17:50:44 [Permalink]
|
Original Intent:
The argument is that the representatives are supposed to protect us from ourselves, not represent what we want? We don't want that... case and point./... arguably the most important job out their has been pandered to the parties and partisan politics, instead of with the learned folks of the electoral college.... |
Out of all of the strawmen built in the above post, this one is the most outrageous. Can't you do better than to offer red herrings and strawman arguments? Who exactly said that our representatives are not supposed to represent us by working for what we want? Did you actually read any of the posts before you posted???
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2008 : 06:57:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
chaloobi:
In Michigan we voted on two ballot measures this year: to repeal part of the legislature's total ban on stem cell research and to legalize pot for medical use. They both passed and it felt great to vote on these issues which I don't beleive for a moment our legislature would have ever taken them up. (In fact, I'm extremely upset with my state legislature for refusing to enact a public smoking ban, which I support heart and soul).
On the other hand in the last election a ballot measure passed to ammend the constitution to ban same sex marriage, which I did not agree with. To reiterate, I think ammending the constitution with ballot proposals goes too far. But I'm not so sure I don't like legislative proposals. |
As I said, some are good measures. But how do we get to them without allowing for the bad ones?
Perhaps if we started pressuring our representatives by making them understand that we will vote them out if they ignore us might do the trick. But most people vote and go home. They don't get involved.
I don't know what the answer is. Perhaps full discloser about who is sponsoring the proposed law and paying for getting it on the ballot and advertising for it would be a good thing. And I don't mean small print at the bottom of the ads.
You know: The large print giveth and the small print taketh away. Tom Waits
|
The popularity of ballot proposals might be an indication that the two party system isn't working. I could write my legislative representatives and make threats but the fact is if the guy is a Republican there's probably no way I'm going to vote for him and if he's a democrat he will get my vote regardless of the fact that democrats are unlikely to represent my ideology. If I don't vote at all or I vote for a third party I thereby help the local Reopublican which is worse by far than the democrat. The system is structured so that no other party can be sustained and if we care we are bound to vote for the least bad. Our representative democracy is broken. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2008 : 09:21:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chaloobi
The popularity of ballot proposals might be an indication that the two party system isn't working. I could write my legislative representatives and make threats but the fact is if the guy is a Republican there's probably no way I'm going to vote for him and if he's a democrat he will get my vote regardless of the fact that democrats are unlikely to represent my ideology. If I don't vote at all or I vote for a third party I thereby help the local Reopublican which is worse by far than the democrat. The system is structured so that no other party can be sustained and if we care we are bound to vote for the least bad. Our representative democracy is broken.
|
First off, our supreme court ruled gay marriages as legal under our constitution. Changing our constitution should be serious matter and should not be subject to change by a simple majority vote using the initiative process. That kind of change, if brought to the people, should require at least a 2/3 majority after legislative consideration.
But I see the dilemma you present. I also see the abuses of the initiative process. Somehow the initiatives, if we're going to keep them, need some kind of forced transparency. The people need to know who is really behind the proposed change in laws. They need to know who will benefit and why.
Making up organizations like "concerned teachers association" that exist only to endorse or defeat a proposition should not be legal. If the organization didn't exist before the measure was proposed, their endorsement should not be allowed. If the endorsers were identified as the people who are actually paying to get make a new law or change an existing law, without hiding behind the smokescreen of some made up name, that would go a long way to help the public understand what the measure is about.
I would also not allow deceptive names for the propositions themselves. "The protection of our forests land act" sounds good but may actually be logging companies who want protection from state limits on logging, for example. We need to know what it is that is being proposed in measures title. And again, who is paying for it.
I can envision changes that would make ballot measures more palatable to me is the point. Remove all of the deception and then at least the common voter has an idea of what they are voting for.
That would probably result in fewer propositions, since forced honesty would doom some measures before they hit the ballot.
A drastic change in the way measures qualify and forced transparency would go a long way to changing my mind about the initiative process. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2008 : 10:51:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by chaloobi
The popularity of ballot proposals might be an indication that the two party system isn't working. I could write my legislative representatives and make threats but the fact is if the guy is a Republican there's probably no way I'm going to vote for him and if he's a democrat he will get my vote regardless of the fact that democrats are unlikely to represent my ideology. If I don't vote at all or I vote for a third party I thereby help the local Reopublican which is worse by far than the democrat. The system is structured so that no other party can be sustained and if we care we are bound to vote for the least bad. Our representative democracy is broken.
|
First off, our supreme court ruled gay marriages as legal under our constitution. Changing our constitution should be serious matter and should not be subject to change by a simple majority vote using the initiative process. That kind of change, if brought to the people, should require at least a 2/3 majority after legislative consideration. |
I'm totally with you on this. It's a very bad idea to allow ammendments to a state constitution like this.
But I see the dilemma you present. I also see the abuses of the initiative process. Somehow the initiatives, if we're going to keep them, need some kind of forced transparency. The people need to know who is really behind the proposed change in laws. They need to know who will benefit and why.
Making up organizations like "concerned teachers association" that exist only to endorse or defeat a proposition should not be legal. If the organization didn't exist before the measure was proposed, their endorsement should not be allowed. If the endorsers were identified as the people who are actually paying to get make a new law or change an existing law, without hiding behind the smokescreen of some made up name, that would go a long way to help the public understand what the measure is about.
I would also not allow deceptive names for the propositions themselves. "The protection of our forests land act" sounds good but may actually be logging companies who want protection from state limits on logging, for example. We need to know what it is that is being proposed in measures title. And again, who is paying for it.
I can envision changes that would make ballot measures more palatable to me is the point. Remove all of the deception and then at least the common voter has an idea of what they are voting for.
That would probably result in fewer propositions, since forced honesty would doom some measures before they hit the ballot.
A drastic change in the way measures qualify and forced transparency would go a long way to changing my mind about the initiative process.
|
Really this is just an (effective) argument against ballot proposals because there is no easy way to ensure these abuses do not occur. The inability for the general public to be expert on all or even most political and social issues makes us ineffective in a straight up democracy. Hence representation. Hence the argument that legislation should be done by representatives who are expert. The effort needed to make the variety of fixes you outline would be better put to fixing the way our representative democracy actually works, making the argument for ballot proposals less compelling. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2008 : 15:29:59 [Permalink]
|
Sorry to be missing in action for a few days. I and a small group of like-minded Democrats have been having an extended celebration of the end of the Cheney era and the, hopefully, beginning of a period of rational liberal government. There are damn few of us up here in the northwest woods of Idaho, so we went to Blue Seattle and found some company with whom to party! I'm still a little hung over.
With reference to Proposition 8, I am in total agreement with Dude and others that feel this form of legislation by mass fiat should be eliminated nationally, particularly when it leads to modification of constitutional law.
What happened in California illustrates a majority tyranny that is unconscionable. An especial irony derives from the fact that a substantial proportion of the support for proposition 8 came from a racial group whose hard-won and highly deserved equality was epitomized by the election of a black man as president - in the same election that passed proposition 8!
Here we have good folks, very properly supporting a black presidential candidate because he was by far the best choice, and also because he was black. And in this they were right and justified, because of the odious history of the persecution of their race.
But many of them (approximately 70% according to estimates) also voted for proposition 8 because of their religious beliefs, thereby making a statement of exactly the same kind of minority persecution and intolerance that the election of a black man as president flatly denies!
Unquestionably, the Catholicism of the Latino community contributed significantly to the this reprehensible rejection of simple civil rights of another minority group!
It is a sad and angry example of the awful power wielded by the mindless acceptance of superstitious religious views in affecting purely secular decisions. Same-sex marriage in California was protected by constitutional statutes regarding civil unions, not religious ones.
There should be a constitutional amendment banning religious meddling with secular rights! Oh yeah, there is, isn't there? Or is there?
|
|
|
|
Hittman
Skeptic Friend
134 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2008 : 18:53:40 [Permalink]
|
| We hope that the legislature would follow or temper the will of the people in accordance with the Constitution. However they do what they want to do keep themselves in power. |
Exactly. If they followed the will of the people the bailout never would have happened. It was opposed by just about everyone. But they voted to give money to their friends.
| The popularity of ballot proposals might be an indication that the two party system isn't working |
We don't really have a two party system. We've got two parties who love big government, and always do everything they can to make it bigger. The only difference is the Democrats admit it and the Republicans lie about it. But the end result is always the same – more big government for them, less freedom for us.
The Founding Fathers could have created a direct democracy if they wanted to. They knew better. {cliché alert} Direct democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. {/cliché alert}
And the best proof that direct democracy is a bad idea? Proposition 8 passed.
|
When a vampire Jehovah's Witness knocks on your door, don't invite him in. Blood Witness: http://bloodwitness.com
Get Smartenized® with the Quick Hitts blog: http://www.davehitt.com/blog2/index.phpBlog |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2008 : 19:43:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hittman
We've got two parties who love big government, and always do everything they can to make it bigger. |
I'm curious: how does one measure the size of the government? Employees? Budget? Square footage? Someone combination of factors? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2008 : 19:51:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hittman
| We hope that the legislature would follow or temper the will of the people in accordance with the Constitution. However they do what they want to do keep themselves in power. |
Exactly. If they followed the will of the people the bailout never would have happened. It was opposed by just about everyone. But they voted to give money to their friends. |
Hi Hittman. Welcome to SFN.
I'm not sure of the numbers on just how many people actually opposed the 'bailout' but I wouldn't necessarily chalk up its passage completely to the cynical Congress-paying-back-special-interests line.
I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, I generally lack confidence in whether or not "the people" know what they're talking about. After all, as recently as last year, something like 40% of America thought that Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th. Seriously. People want Sarah Palin to run for President in 2012.
So part of me imagines that people in Congress have access to actual economists who are sort of smart, and who can tell them what's up. And then they vote based on this information.
But that's probably stupid of me.
And then I'm stuck wondering how we're ever going to get out of this mess. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2008 : 21:06:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
But that's probably stupid of me. |
God, I've walked myself through this same logic before and I understand exactly what you mean. It's a bad deal either way. I think I've just come to the conclusion that no matter what the bottom line is that nobody competent is in charge. But also that this has probably almost always been so, stretching bad to the Roman Empire at least, and yet here we are. It must all work itself out somehow. Civilization continues to progress on in a series of jerks and stops.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2008 : 07:54:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Hittman
We've got two parties who love big government, and always do everything they can to make it bigger. |
I'm curious: how does one measure the size of the government? Employees? Budget? Square footage? Someone combination of factors? |
Thank you, Dave for asking this question. It's something that's been in the back of my mind for years. "Big Government" has been a right wing boogeyman for years now. But what does it mean? And how can we measure it?
My guess, Dave, is that it's a meaningless term and that pundits and media personalities throw it out to smear the candidates/ideologies that they don't like. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2008 : 08:12:59 [Permalink]
|
You measure the size of government by the number of people it employs and how much money it costs to operate. These stats are probably easily available. I'd look them up, but they are not really relevant to the "big government" complaint.
Obviously as our population increases the size of our government will increase as well.
The problem conservatives (and some liberals, myself included) have with "big government" has little to do with its actual size though. My complaint is about the waste of taxpayer money, corruption, and general inefficiency of government in general.
Another problem is the intrusion of government into private lives. Conservatives today are more than a bit hypocritical about this. They want government to tell you who you can marry, when you can reproduce, etc... but they still complain about government intrusion. Don't even get me started on the conservative embrace of domestic spying.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2008 : 11:32:49 [Permalink]
|
I really wonder about corruption and earmarks. Sure they are a common practices and should be fought against for principle's sake and certainly, we heard the term again and again during the campaign... But how much does it really represent? How much does it, actually, weight the government down?
The few numbers I heard suggested that the earmarks only increased the cost of the government's operations by less than one per cent.
That's hardly that significant.
And, really, every time I hear about people criticizing the 'inefficient' big government, I think about the electricity crisis in California; I think about the degradations in the rail system in England or in the distribution of water in France and I think about the recent mess in Wall-Street.
I am not, by any stretch, convinced that the private sector is magically and automatically better and more efficient at running things that the government is.
The main problem, in the US; the main reason why taxes are so high in comparison of how the government can improve the quality of life of its people; is the military.
Military is the main cost of the government these days; the US spending more on their own than all other nations in the world put together. Furthermore, it's money that goes and do not go back to the government pocket (in comparison, for example, with Welfare where money is reinjected in the economical process, sustaining jobs and, ultimately, generating taxes that help paying for itself).
You can argue that the such a military is a necessity nowadays; to protect the US vast net of interests abroad.
And, of course, speaking of lowering the military budget is very politically tricky; soon you will be attacked about putting the american public at risk and lacking patriotism and not supporting the troops.
But; still, that is a huge amount of money and so much could be done with it... |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2008 : 14:56:35 [Permalink]
|
Earmarks are not an issue as far as I'm concerned.
The problem is in things like the defense budget, we spend a massive amount of money there and I don't think we are getting good value. We need strict oversight, congressional intervention, accounting reviews, and a much more focused plan for defense. Hell, they should hire fucking Blackwater on as a consultant! That company manages to run efficiently, pays it's troops something like 5x what the Army does, and still turns a profit. Yes, the official military has a bigger mission, but the general principles may well be applicable.
Corruption... anyone even remember the recent DOI scandal? So much drama has gone down since that one broke, it seems almost irrelevant.
Useless government agencies: Office of faith based initiatives? Ummm.. yeah.
Homeland security. Nothing they have done could stop me from hijacking a plane and crashing it into something. Nothing they have done could stop me from making a OK City style fertilizer bomb and taking out a building. Nothing they have done could stop me from making a giant napalm bomb and driving it into a school. This agency was created so the government could be seen to be doing something. What they do doesn't matter, just as long as officials can point to the agency and make a claim of action. Tom ridge, making people afraid of the color orange since 2002! The whole agency needs to be scrapped and re-done.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
A proposition on propositions
