Referendums/Referenda

[sun-star]

What are your views on governments in representative democracies holding referendums on specific issues? I know some countries use them a lot more than others - do you think they enhance democracy, or are they a waste of time?

[brownjenkins]

i'd like to see them a lot more often... we do have them in massachusetts, though they are somewhat tied to the legislation process

one of the things that bother's me about many politicians these days is that it is somehow seen as respectful when they have the "personal integrity" to support issues that are in complete opposition to what their constituency supports... and often to what they pledged during their own elections (or conveniently failed to address)

they claim that they were elected because the people respect their ability to use their own judgement... excuse me, but i elected a representative, not a king

sure, there are issues that need immediate and swift action, but they are few and far between... in some ways, i wonder if, in today's interconnected world, representative government could be largely done away with in favor of a more direct "by the people" form

[Radagast]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
sure, there are issues that need immediate and swift action, but they are few and far between... in some ways, i wonder if, in today's interconnected world, representative government could be largely done away with in favor of a more direct "by the people" form

Hmm, I disagree. I think that now, more than ever, we need representatives, as now, more than ever, the people are confused as to what they want.

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
they claim that they were elected because the people respect their ability to use their own judgement... excuse me, but i elected a representative, not a king

Excellent point, Brownie!

I'm not confused about what I want, Radagast. Why do you think the people are confused about what they want? I usually see people with strong opinions around me, and on the news. I don't see people picketing with signs saying "I'm confused, please tell me what to do". I really don't understand what you're saying

Or are you saying the confused people just stay home and don't vote? Well, that's their choice, IMO, and then they should not complain about things if they don't like them.

[jerseydevil]

I think referendums are used too much in some states - such as California, Oregon and Washington.

In Washington State while I was out in Oregon - the roofs in school buildings couldn't be fixed because they couldn't get as referendum passed to pay for the improvements. A lot of California's debt is caused by referendums - because yeah - it looks great to supply all these benefits to people - but people don't want to pay for them. So they pass the referendums that cost the state all this money.

We elect representatives for a reason. It's imppossible for a citizen to understand all the nuiances of the government, all the costs involved with a law, the tax consequences and everything else. Citizens general look at "does it look good on paper?" and then it ends there - most people don't look at long term effects. Of course representatives don't always either - but they have more of an understanding - because they are on committees and things.

[Ruinel]

I have to agree with JD on some of what he said.

Sometimes people are swayed to vote with their heart and not with their head.

However, I think that referendums are important to the democratic process.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
We elect representatives for a reason. It's imppossible for a citizen to understand all the nuiances of the government, all the costs involved with a law, the tax consequences and everything else. Citizens general look at "does it look good on paper?" and then it ends there - most people don't look at long term effects. Of course representatives don't always either - but they have more of an understanding - because they are on committees and things.

of course, a large reason why these things are so hard to understand is because they are made purposely vague by those who desire a certain result... the wording on the ballot questions is often so vague that it is hard to tell whether you are voting for or against an idea... and yes, they rarely explain where the funding will come from

i heard a report on npr today about paul o'neill being fired a day before he released his report about the true effect of bush's tax policy... a report which was supressed until quite recently... and this is not just the current administration... it is common practice to "spin" economic figures when new proposals come up

i'm not saying everyone will care or understand... but to those of us who do, the option should be given

[jerseydevil]

It's not a matter of caring or not caring - it's the fact that it is impossible to know everything about everything. Against the military - sure - vote it down, but then the US is attacked - do we have to then go to a referendum to build up are military again?

You seem to be thinking that we should be having referendums on a national scale - which I am completely against because it takes away the soverignty of the states. if it's unmanageable from what I saw and experienced in the west - then I wouldn't want to imagine what it would be like on a national scale.

As for bush's tax plan he can't do anything without Congress. have you read the bills that go before congress? it would be IMPOSSIBLE for citizens to vote on things - that is why we have a congress and representatives. if they don't vote the way you feel they should - then vote them out - as simple as that.

The founding fathers knew that having a true democracy is unmanageable - that is why our government was set up as a democratic republic.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You seem to be thinking that we should be having referendums on a national scale - which I am completely against because it takes away the soverignty of the states. if it's unmanageable from what I saw and experienced in the west - then I wouldn't want to imagine what it would be like on a national scale.

federal referendums on federal matters and state referendums on state matters... not on anywhere near all matters... just on the far-reaching and vital issues

this is how it works in mass... and it is often the representatives who decide which issues to put forward... so they share a part of the responsibility in the process, but at the same time share some of the burden of the decision

As for bush's tax plan he can't do anything without Congress. have you read the bills that go before congress? it would be IMPOSSIBLE for citizens to vote on things - that is why we have a congress and representatives. if they don't vote the way you feel they should - then vote them out - as simple as that.

our representatives rarely read all the bills either (or write them)... they read the same summaries we do

on the "vote 'em out" philosophy, there are just too many issues to keep it that simple... you end up having to vote for the person who you disagree with the least, not the one that truely reflects your view... or even the view of the majority

The founding fathers knew that having a true democracy is unmanageable - that is why our government was set up as a democratic republic.

a lot has changed in 200+ years as far as what is and isn't manageable

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
federal referendums on federal matters and state referendums on state matters... not on anywhere near all matters... just on the far-reaching and vital issues

Then you are taking away state representation - unless it is voted as a electorial college type thing where people vote on the referendum - but then have the vote according to their representation in Congress. I would be against having the large states (although I am in one) controlling the little states through the referendums.

this is how it works in mass... and it is often the representatives who decide which issues to put forward... so they share a part of the responsibility in the process, but at the same time share some of the burden of the decision

In California - all you need is to get like a couple of thousand signatures to bring something as a referendum - that's why they have constant referendums and they're bankrupt.

our representatives rarely read all the bills either (or write them)... they read the same summaries we do

They're in committees to discuss and iron out much of what is done. I know I have never been in on a committee meeting in Congress.

on the "vote 'em out" philosophy, there are just too many issues to keep it that simple... you end up having to vote for the person who you disagree with the least, not the one that truely reflects your view... or even the view of the majority

You're never going to agree with everyone 100% of the time. You vote for the person you most agree with - it goes the same with laws. Also - look at what happens when things are done in the heat of the moment. An example is the stupid three strikes your out. Our prisons are overflowing because someone stole a loaf of bread practically. But hey - everyone was for it because it would keep criminals off the street. Now we have a ton of people who didn't do anything serious - but they have three strikes. People vote in the heat of the moment too much - our government was formed to prevent the constant whiplash caused by voting like that.

a lot has changed in 200+ years as far as what is and isn't manageable

You're right - it is a lot different. I't even MORE unimagiable today because the federal government has become bloated and overbearing.

[jerseydevil]

By the way - this will never happen at the national level - the whole constitution would have to be changed and that isn't going to happen. It's way too hard and neither 2/3 of the states nor 2/3 of Congress is going to propose it.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
By the way - this will never happen at the national level - the whole constitution would have to be changed and that isn't going to happen. It's way too hard and neither 2/3 of the states nor 2/3 of Congress is going to propose it.

i agree... i think it is more likely than not that the next major political/economic step will happen outside of the US

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
i agree... i think it is more likely than not that the next major political/economic step will happen outside of the US

I don't consider referendums as a good thing. I also don't think the lose of state sovereignty as a good thing. I would not want state representation to be watered down on the national level and go to a popular vote. Therefore I don't conside this as being a major step in the political landscape.

Anyway - states already have referendums - so I don't see how it would be a major breakthrough if a country in Europe or another country - which is no bigger than the size of our states - decides to go with referendums.

[GrayMouser]

As I've said before, I'm against referendums, basically for the same reasons that jd pointed out- it's too easy to vote for all the goodies, then vote again to not pay the bills.

Of course, this is what elected politicians promise anyway, but at least when they're in office they have to try and deal with the reality of the situation.

The exception I would make is for plebiscites, the rare occasions when, for example, boundaries are being set or issues of separation are being decided.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
As I've said before, I'm against referendums, basically for the same reasons that jd pointed out- it's too easy to vote for all the goodies, then vote again to not pay the bills.

There was another problem I thought about earlier while thinking about this - how many frigging times during the course of the year will we have to go to polls? The US government is HUGE and there are tons of bills that have to be decided on - we would practically have to go to the polls every single day. I'm not spending my days voting all the time. That's what we have a frigging Congress for.

The other thing - how much money is the government and people going to be spending on political ads for all these referendums that would come to a vote for the citizens? Are the ONLY commercial on tv going to be "vote for referendum 1,053" or "vote NO on referendum 2,493". This is why we have representatives - we elect them so they can make these decisions.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
By the way - this will never happen at the national level - the whole constitution would have to be changed and that isn't going to happen. It's way too hard and neither 2/3 of the states nor 2/3 of Congress is going to propose it.

ahem... 3/4's of states!

[Janny]

Indeed, another usless fact I learnt through studying history!

I think referenda are good for the democracy. I'm sure when (note when ) I get into political office, I will detest them, because to an extent they must prevent a politician doing his or her job. There must be times when safeguards have to implimented to prevent blocking of funding like in JD's example*.
Ultimately, though, it is right that the electorate chooses a representative, who they can make do their will. the problem arises when the representative in question manipulates the question or asks simply that the elecorate votes for the correct answer... I can hear the reverse gears turning, Mr Speaker!

*'How many times do I have to say it, democracy doesn't work!' - Homer J Simpson.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Valandil
ahem... 3/4's of states!

NO - it's 2/3.
This is what I said...

It's way too hard and neither 2/3 of the states nor 2/3 of Congress is going to propose it.

I was talking about first getting an Amendment even to the floor to be voted on.

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments,

It then takes 3/4 of the states approval once it has gone through the FIRST phase...

which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress

So - first it requires 2/3 to vote either in Congress or among the states and then must be approved by 3/4 of the states.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
NO - it's 2/3.
This is what I said...

I was talking about first getting an Amendment even to the floor to be voted on.



It then takes 3/4 of the states approval once it has gone through the FIRST phase...



So - first it requires 2/3 to vote either in Congress or among the states and then must be approved by 3/4 of the states.

Got it! Thought I had you on 'Constitution Trivia' for once!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Valandil
Got it! Thought I had you on 'Constitution Trivia' for once!

It'll be a while before anyone does that. Hopefully it will be never.