Yeah, you gotta love people who want to get involved and enact change...

I'm going to assume you're going with the Kaperbole here.

Yeah, you gotta love people who want to get involved and enact change...

Simple majorities that can simultaneously mandate all sorts of programs and funding while also cutting off sources of revenue for said mandates are a bad thing. I don't really see how you could argue against that given Cali's current state.

Simple majorities that can simultaneously mandate all sorts of programs and funding while also cutting off sources of revenue for said mandates are a bad thing. I don't really see how you could argue against that given Cali's current state.

 

I think that citizens being involved as much as possible in our government is a great idea. I'm not a fan of finding ways to remove them from it.

 

That being said, they should absolutely have to mandate funding, or spending cuts, to go with the program. But then again we really aren't into paying for things so it isn't surprising at all that part of the mandate was left off.

Simple majorities that can simultaneously mandate all sorts of programs and funding while also cutting off sources of revenue for said mandates are a bad thing. I don't really see how you could argue against that given Cali's current state.

It's not just that...it's also how the initiatives are produced. They are lobbyist-written, whatever lobby you want to bash today (this can include Unions and Environmental groups btw), and the California Legislature cannot amend them.

 

Imagine what would happen on say, the environment, if we could get a 51% majority of the countries voters to turn out in favor of an article that massively strengthened the clean air act, and then had it impossible for Congress to ever weaken it?

It's not just that...it's also how the initiatives are produced. They are lobbyist-written, whatever lobby you want to bash today (this can include Unions and Environmental groups btw), and the California Legislature cannot amend them.

 

Imagine what would happen on say, the environment, if we could get a 51% majority of the countries voters to turn out in favor of an article that massively strengthened the clean air act, and then had it impossible for Congress to ever weaken it?

 

They didn't even need that. Just 5 justices.

I think that citizens being involved as much as possible in our government is a great idea. I'm not a fan of finding ways to remove them from it.

 

You don't need direct 50%+1 mandates (written by lobbyists, as Balta points out) in order to be involved in your own governance.

They didn't even need that. Just 5 justices.

Oh, so when 5 justices do something it's a problem now? Congratulations President Gore! This will be a spectacular thing for the environment.

Oh, so when 5 justices do something it's a problem now? Congratulations President Gore! This will be a spectacular thing for the environment.

 

Obviously not. That is less participation for everyone!

You don't need direct 50%+1 mandates (written by lobbyists, as Balta points out) in order to be involved in your own governance.

 

As opposed to a billion dollar Presidential campaign being "involved"?

As opposed to a billion dollar Presidential campaign being "involved"?

Are you in favor of Indiana adopting a Prop system like Cali? Do you see no problems with Cali's system?

As opposed to a billion dollar Presidential campaign being "involved"?

In the last 10 posts of this thread you've complained about how undemocratic votes by 5 justices are and how undemocratic spending large sums of money on Presidential Campaigns are.

 

I think I can officially go and roll around on my floor and laugh.

Are you in favor of Indiana adopting a Prop system like Cali? Do you see no problems with Cali's system?

 

See my post above for the one thing I would change.

In the last 10 posts of this thread you've complained about how undemocratic votes by 5 justices are and how undemocratic spending large sums of money on Presidential Campaigns are.

 

I think I can officially go and roll around on my floor and laugh.

 

If you think 5 votes of Justices are more democratic than 50% +1 of the people in a governed district, go ahead and keep laughing. I have no problem with that. To me, one person, one vote is way more democratic than one billion dollars or five justices. But with your firm belief that people shouldn't think for themselves, I am not at all surprised by you thinking any of this is humorous.

well, this went down a rabbit hole I never intended....

Institutions apparently don't matter, so it's okay.

If you think 5 votes of Justices are more democratic than 50% +1 of the people in a governed district, go ahead and keep laughing. I have no problem with that. To me, one person, one vote is way more democratic than one billion dollars or five justices. But with your firm belief that people shouldn't think for themselves, I am not at all surprised by you thinking any of this is humorous.

 

Shall I link you to some "Caylee's LAW!" facebook threads?

Shall I link you to some "Caylee's LAW!" facebook threads?

 

That's a politicians headline grabbing move, not a law that people actually want.

To me, one person, one vote is way more democratic than one billion dollars or five justices.

Thank you for your strenuous opposition to the Citizens United Decision and for your sudden and unexpected opposition to voter ID/disenfranchisement efforts.

Thank you for your strenuous opposition to the Citizens United Decision and for your sudden and unexpected opposition to voter ID/disenfranchisement efforts.

 

I guess that means you are in favor of disenfranchisement by association?

I guess that means you are in favor of disenfranchisement by association?

I'm not quite sure what that term means.

Shall I link you to some "Caylee's LAW!" facebook threads?

 

Last I looked idiots are just as constitutionally protected as us geniuses are.

I'm not quite sure what that term means.

 

Seriously, I don't get what "disenfranchisement by association" means?

Last I looked idiots are just as constitutionally protected as us geniuses are.

 

Last I looked we're a representative democracy!

 

eta I'm not arguing for a technocracy here, just against some of the apparent, easily observable dangers of direct democracy, mainly voter ignorance.

Edited July 13, 201114 yr by StrangeSox

Last I looked we're a representative democracy!

Serious question...is there a functioning direct democracy anywhere in the world?