Ever since Prop 13 (the first of the great conservative disasters to beset this country), I've felt that the state ballot initiative process was potentially disastrous. Too many ballot initiatives win or lose based on fear-and-smear campaigns.
The state’s legislative districts are highly gerrymandered, leaving the Legislature influenced by the political fringe of both parties and unable to agree on practical budget matters or much else. State senators represent roughly a million people each, larger than most Congressional districts, leaving them out of touch with local needs. Further, the state is one of only three requiring a two-thirds majority vote in the Legislature on taxes and budgets, which leads to partisan fighting and long delays.A constitutional convention can resolve those problems. Blame Prop 13 for the two-thirds majority rule regarding the raising of taxes. The law mandating a two-thirds majority for passing a budget goes back to 1933.
I strongly believe in the idea of governing by way of a simple majority. If the legislators screw up, then toss 'em out at the next election. That's a democracy. What we have now is not democracy -- it's a recipe for incessant gridlock.
The "political fringe" observation is spot on. Most of the country would be shocked to learn just how conservative -- and I mean crazy conservative -- many California politicians are. In Los Angeles, you can hear pinkos on KPFK and brie-and-chablis liberals on KCRW and Air America on KTLK-- but if you drive a couple of hours north or south or east, the radio blares nothing but country music and Jayzuss Crass. (And Mexican music. That's everywhere.)
We also have to get rid of our system of term limits -- another really bad idea for which we must thank the conservative movement. Term limits insure that legislators stop worrying about compromise. Why concern yourself with building up long term relationships when there is no long term?
The massive budget shortfall means tighter cash for colleges, the closing of emergency shelters for battered women and children, and the commutation of prisoner sentences. (Actually, the last idea has genuine merit, if we're talking about fairly minor drug offenses.)
Schwarzenegger will probably close libraries. If you want the taxpayers to be more tractable, piss off lots of moms.
Both San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom and AH-nuld support the convention idea. You won't often see those two on the same page.
6 comments:
We also need to repair the initiative process. Prop 13 and Prop 8 are just two of many bad ballot propositions funded by special interests.
Way too many of them are now laws.
Out of control initiative processes are endemic to the Western states. Here in Colorado, the combination of paid petition gatherers, dishonest political advertising, and misleading ballot wording succeeded in passing Amendment 1 a/k/a TABOR, the so-called "Taxpayers' Bill of Rights" (a tax limitation more sweeping and therefore more egregious than California's Prop 13), Amendment 2, the shameful anti-gay amendment that was passed the same year but fortunately struck down as unconstitutional, the idiotic Amendment 23, which mandated annual increases in K-12 expenditures even while TABOR gutted state revenues, the usual term limits (which has resulted in some rural counties electing non-physicians as coroners because none of the local physicians are eligible to run anymore), various anti-abortion and marriage-related intiatives, and an ethics amendment so sloppily worded as to potentially prohibit the children of state employees from accepting college scholarships or state university professors from accepting Nobel prizes (fortunately, the Ethics Commission created by this amendment ruled 3-2 that such things were not withing the scope of the amendment).
Contrary to what you claim, Joe, nonsense like this is "democracy" in its most literally translated sense: "mob rule".
This is why the Founding Fathers, in their infinite wisdom, gave us a republic instead.
We also have to get rid of our system of term limits -- another really bad idea for which we must thank the conservative movement. Term limits insure that legislators stop worrying about compromise. Why concern yourself with building up long term relationships when there is no long term? Concur. I also recall reading an analysis of the US Congress over the last 15 years and it was found that the ones breaking the various of, call them "gentlemen's agreements" - (standards of fair play, etc.)which had evolved within that body were nearly all from that group composed of those who had been elected for the first time in the period of 1994 on, and not the ones who had been there awhile. Although the US Congress doesn't have term limits as of yet, that by itself argues against them.
[SP]
nonsense like this is "democracy" in its most literally translated sense: "mob rule". People are pretty reasonable, by and large, but - as Joe noted - with the gerrymandering, in order to get the 2/3rds CA politicians have to move outside the majority and go to the fringes, which is where you get the nonsense.
This is why the Founding Fathers, in their infinite wisdom, gave us a republic instead. However they established a system whereby the people elect representatives who are still supposed to try and do what the people say they want. If they do otherwise - i.e. pass laws the people *don't* want "for their own good" - then we are in effect electing kings or dictators...which is one thing they were definitely trying to avoid.
And while it's true they are supposed to do a better job than we would in their place, that job is still to first ask us what we want, then do their best to give it to us.
Sergei Rostov
Sergei,
My comment about "democracy" was specifically directed towards the initiative process. I don't know about California, but here in Colorado most people seem to make their decisions on initiatives based simply on summary wording on the ballot (which is chosen by the proponents). For example, Amendment 2 (which banned any sort of anti-discrimination legislation based on sexual orientation and prevented local governments from offering benefits
to same-sex partners) was vaguely billed as preventing the granting of "special rights". Most people never read the damned thing. That sure didn't stop them from voting on it.
Governing by intiative is wildly impractical and open to abuse. Approving complex legislation on the basis of 30-second ad spots is insane.
One could, of course, say the same thing about Presidential elections ;-).
Letting people rule by initiative is a bad idea because you get laws based on primitive emotions and not careful deliberation. As a gay person I have to say the results can be distressing.
They can also be dangerous.
Take Prop 83, which is California's way of dealing with sex offenders.
One of the rules under prop 83, which is an extraordinarily punitive law, is that a sex offender can not live within 2000 feet or a school, church or place where children congregate.
Failure to obey the law is a felony.
Evidently in most cities in CA there is no place you can live that is not 2000 from a school, church etc-or in other words there is no way to avoid committing a felony if you live in a city.
As a result, in order to avoid committing a felony (and Ca has a three strikes law) sex offenders moved out of their homes en masse and become homeless.
There are now thousands of homeless sex offenders in CA, many seriously mentally ill, wandering around streets near you. Is this a good idea?
Governance, like any other job is a skill requiring thought and experience. In CA you see the results of letting inexperienced people try to run the state. I just think it is crazy.
SP:
Ok, I'm glad you said that.
Here in WI the intiative process was abused a couple of times:
- one read: 'would you like a sports lottery to cover the cost of a new Brewer stadium?'
Well, the public didn't want any public money to go to it at all, so it was voted down, and the sales tax in Milwaukee Co. was raised to pay for it.
What it should have read was, "We are going to make you pay for it, so would you like it to be paid for by a sports lottery instead of by raising you taxes?"
- another read (something like): "Should the WI state constitution be amended to allow people to hunt on private land without the owner's permission when doing so is reasonable?"
What is "reasonable" can depend on who the judge is. So much for private property rights.
Sergei Rostov
Post a Comment