Referendums in general, good/bad/other?

[blondeatlast]

In AZ, we have a generally big, fat, lazy, chicken-shit, do-nothing but grandstand legislature so the only way we get nearly anything worthwhile done is by referendum--ufortunately, we're also pretty red so our referendums leave much to be desired.

I tend to avoid signing referendum petitions as I consider lawmaking a legislative duty, radical that I am. But sometimes I have to sign them to either get a something done about something or to counteract a bonehead legislative move.

So I'm of mixed feelings. I certainly want to see way fewer of them (i think pages of them scare off voters, for one). Also, they are easily concealed in advertising and spin as to their real intent (our Prop on payday loans was mercifully rejected, but we did approve our own Prop H8).

What do you all think of them--speaking as generally as we can?

[kenny blankenship]

1. this is something that's been bugging me and even before Prop 8 passed

I was looking at the referenda items on my GA sample ballot and thinking these propositions look as though they might be deviously worded, even when they seemed to be advancing causes I generally support.
For most voters the two pages of referenda on the GA ballot were almost certainly two pages of gibberish. I doubt anywhere near 50% of voters voted on any of them.

As far as I can tell referendum measures are only used to do BAD stuff. Highly motivated but TINY factions can push through very damaging changes to law this way.
I have become deeply suspicious of the whole idea of ballot referenda, approaching the point of automatic hostility to any ballot measure, and that was even before Prop. 8 in California passed.

[TexasObserver]

They're terrible, because they appeal to majoritarian excess.

[bemildred]

2. A useful and important reform, however unpleasant the results at times..

Imagine a politics where the people could not easily make direct law when the legislature fails or refuses.

[Pithlet]

5. When the legislature fails or refuses

when the time comes you elect new ones.

[bemildred]

8. That's good too, better actually.

But you have to understand why we have the initiative process in the first place, it's around 100 years old now, and was implemented as a counter to secure and unresponsive state legislatures that were stonewalling reform and change. I'm not willing to give it up just because sometimes the results suck. The answer is to educate the voting public better, not to remove an important safeguard and reform.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiative

[blondeatlast]

13. Here in AZ, we manage to usually defeat the worst of the worst (our own H8 was approved,

but the rest went the way I'd hoped they would, one yet unkown).

We ALWAYS vote on raising state legislator's salaries and reject it, so in my opinion, we get the legislature we deserve. this probably is a worthy referenda measure but we always vote in our worst interests.

Every.
Single.
Goddamn.
Time.

And so we are faced with pages of laws that WE take it upon ourselves to make.

[Pithlet]

16. It's not just about the results sometimes sucking

Even when people are generally happy with the results, it's still a horrible way of going about it. It's about protecting the rights of the minority. It's about the integrity of the entire process. It's too easy for the rights of the minority to be trampled if the majority can use their might to bypass the entire process of checks and balances to push their agendas through. The way to deal with an unresponsive state legislature is to vote a new one in. It's a shame the public is unwilling to do that and just wants to stick with an initiative process instead, but that doesn't make the initiative process good. It's an awful way of doing things. It seems democratic, but it's really anything but. And the prop 8 debacle California is facing is a glaring example of why that is. And it isn't even California's first glaring example.

[bunkerbuster1]

3. I pretty much hate them, and wish they'd be a lot harder to get on the ballot in any state.

I'm not quite able to articulate the conditions under which a referendum ought to be allowed, but at minimum I'd say you'd need a petition with 10% of the states' population's signatures.

[Pithlet]

4. Generally, I don't like them.

I don't think they should ever be used to change constitutions or strip anyone of their rights, that's for sure. Overall, I think a lot of the times they're used to make laws that the public are kind of hoodwinked by special interests into making, without thinking through the longterm consequences of those laws. I know that government isn't perfect, but we elect people and checks and balances are used, and it's not perfect, but I think it works a lot better than simply throwing up laws to be decided by a tyranny of the majority.

[blondeatlast]

6. That's pretty much the way I see it. As I say, our legislative is pathetically

gawdawful so sometimes we HAVE to take the reins and the electorate doesn't seem to understand that they need to change the leggies rather than creating referendums.

It's a rather self-fulfilling prophecy cycle.

[Oak2004]

7. Other: they can be useful IF their scope is carefully restricted

the legislature has the ability to sign off on, or block, the referendum, and other exclusions apply (such as restrictions on involvement by out-of-state groups, transparency in funding, requirements that the language be clear, etc.).

The problem with referenda is that they involve submitting complex issues for approval by an electorate who, for the most part, have not considered complex issues, and which is easily swayed by propaganda. They have the trappings of direct democracy, without the substance of direct democracy.

[crispini]

9. We have referendum at our city and it's let us do some good stuff.

That said, I think CA's process leaves something to be desired. It's too easy for big money to buy it with petition gatherers who are paid. Require petition gatherers to be volunteers instead of being paid.

[blondeatlast]

10. That's a huge problem with referenda. I used to work at our main city library

and the paid petitioners could get very intimidating at times.

[bemildred]

12. I like that.

Or at least demand they not be paid per-signature. I would support some restrictions on the nature or the initiative too. And Consitutional amendments should NOT be passed by majority vote, either, as was the case in California just now. The bar should be HIGH for meddling with the Constitution.

[blondeatlast]

11. One thing I have learned, thanks to referenda: how to explore where the money comes from.

If it's too confusing I look up where the money came from--oh, my, is that ever telling!

[suston96]

14. The most important element lacking in ballot initiatives is deliberation.....

....there is none. Letters to the editor? Talk radio? Special interest groups with lots of money? That's how we want to make laws?

No thanks. Let the legislature do it. At least their lobbyists are visible and controlled by laws that require them to register as lobbyists.

Lots of money involved starting with paying "volunteers" to collect signatures. They are paid by the number of signatures they collect.

Then there is the complete lack of deliberative discussions pro and con. You get a pamphlet a few weeks before the election with typically badly worded descriptions and remarks.

Most of the time you the voter don't know what a yes or a no mean when you vote.

If the elected legislature doesn't please your sensitivities regarding what you want it to do then change it and maybe run for a seat yourself.

Now there's a thought.

[blondeatlast]

15. I've been asked. I could not get past the vetting process (healthwise).

I had to politely decline.

As I say upthread, we always vote DOWN a raise in legislator salaries--we in AZ tend to make our own beds but we effing HATE lying in them.

So we make them again--and bitch and moan about the bedbugs.

[JVS]

17. I generally like more voter power, but perhaps the courts should examine some propostions before...

putting them on the ballot in order to determine constitutionality before they are voted on.