This whole ballot initiative process makes me somewhat uneasy

[Hugabear]

To me it almost seems like it's creating another branch of government, one where citizens can bypass the legislative process. Sure, it's fine when it works our way. But we've just seen how easily it can go the other way as well. The Religious Right seems to have latched on to this as a way to force their agenda down everyone's throat, trampling all over the separation of church & state. When anyone objects, they simply claim "it's the will of the people".

The problem with this is that the Constitution was designed specifically to protect minority interests, to avoid the majority from simply running roughshod over the population. I mentioned this in another post, but if it were simply up to majority rule, chances are the Confederate States of America would still exist. One can only imagine how civil rights would have been affected if states had been using ballot initiatives to skirt around federal civil rights rules.

I'm not saying that ballot initiatives don't have their place, they can certainly be a good tool. But they should require a much stronger threshold (I've read that Prop 8 only rec'd 30% of the vote?). I dunno, it just really irks me that religious extremists in this country can use this tool to try to legislate their own morality upon the rest of us.

[Selatius]

1. Ballot initiatives are fine so long as they are not allowed to amend the Constitution.

In California's case, we can see an example where a theoretical 50% + 1 majority can change a fundamental aspect of a constitution. Even in Switzerland, where initiatives are a monthly occurrence and where citizens can easily check the power of the legislature, this is not allowed. To amend a governing document should require more than a simple majority, and it is usually the case in most nations in the world.

[Johonny]

4. It's worse than that

a majority + 1 vote can make a law saying a super majority is needed to pass certain types of laws. The process in California generally allows those with the money to get their props on the ballot have an extra control of the law making process over those without that type of money.

[ThirdWorldJohn]

6. Repugs called 50%+1 democracy or mob rule under Bush so that he could go to war with Iraq.....

and not have to deal with the majority opinion of the people.

"It would be a lot easier if this were a dictatorship. Just as long as I am the dictator." - GWB

I would think now the precedent is in place to allow segregation by popular ballot if 50% + 1 voter for segregation.

[anigbrowl]

7. Quite. the threshold for legislative and constitutional change (by voters) is the same

which is demonstrably insane.

[robinlynne]

2. In addition to all you said, the votes were tabulated by computer in California.

WE really do not know if "the will of the people" was heard at all.

[JerseygirlCT]

3. Totally agree

and ballot initiatives should never be allowed to trump civil rights. Those shouldn't be up for debate.

[customerserviceguy]

8. The problem here is that equal marriage

has not been broadly defined as a civil right. Even the progressive man who is our President has not championed that as a civil right.

We need some leadership that is more influential than Perez Hilton.

[JerseygirlCT]

10. We do

Although IIRC, in Loving the USSC did say marriage was a civil right.

It seems there's been a lot of backstepping since. (Well, we weren't thinking about gay people, just black and white people...)

[customerserviceguy]

17. Loving vs. Virginia

was a very important case in the issues surrounding marriage equality. According to the Gallup Poll, at the time of that significant ruling, about 90% of Americans opposed it, they felt that the states had the right to forbid interracial marriage. Thankfully, we live in a more enlightened time regarding the polling data in reference to same-gender marriage rights.

However, 1967 was a very different time from today in terms of leadership. We had Democratic politicians speaking out regularly in favor of equality between people of different races. Where are the elected spokespersons who will courageously stand in favor of people's rights to enjoy the benefits of marriage with those that they truly love?

[WyLoochka]

5. The Founders

hashed all that out - direct democracy vs representative democracy. They settled on representative democracy - not that we've been getting that - mostly due to all the lobbying money.

But they specifically decided not to found a direct democracy, because the majority would then almost always tyrannize the minority.

CA has been all but ruined by ballot initiatives. It all started with Prop 13. Now, not only this tyranny of the bigoted majority over the minority, but they are in a bad way financially - and there is not much they can do about it. They tied their legislators hands so they can't respond appropriately to the situation at hand.

[nichomachus]

9. Prop H8 received yes votes from 30 percent of registered voters

but, of course, not everyone voted -- nor is everyone who is eligible registered. So, actually, PropH8 was enacted by a tiny minority of Californians -- despite the propaganda from the Christo-fascists.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nichomachus]

12. I know how the voting system works, thanks

I'm just countering the argument that "A majority of Californians voted for Prop 8." No, they didn't -- and that's why this ballot referendum idea is so flawed. A tiny percentage of people can amend the constitution -- often based on false information.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluebear]

14. You signed up to tell us that? (",,,,")

[Comedie]

15. I shouldn't have to....

I signed up because I voted for Obama and want to see change. House, Senate, and Presidency all under the same badge. And unfortunately what I'm seeing is a bunch of special interests within the party wanting to be divisive, and picking battles on battlegrounds that are ill advised. That and a whole bunch of people who just want to spend all their time and energy crucifying the prior regime and can't figure out how to go forward.

You prioritize your issues, pick your battles, and then pick your battlegrounds. Simple as that. Pulling up divisive issues just means you will fragment your own vote and potentially polarize people against you.

Social Security, Medicaid, and Health Care are far more important issues with positive legacy value.

Heck, most of these people throwing fits seem to be armchair activists who are not even in CA.

[nichomachus]

16. You apparently

have no idea how the political system works.

Please inform yourself, before posting nonsense

And for the record, equality is more important that all the other issues you mentioned. If any group is singled out for unequal treatment -- no one is safe.