Direct democracy?

[durangodawood]

So yesterday I filled in my ballot which included appx 15 ballot initiatives I had to study and ponder. And I'm like "why do I have to do this? We elect professionals for this."

1. Representative democracy - not direct democracy - was the vision of the founders, as outlined in the constitution. I realize the states can go their own way. But didnt the founders have a principled case that should apply to states just the same?

2. In the absurd "we're a republic, not a democracy" polemic, people are always going on about how terrible democracy is - especially direct democracy. Yet I get the sense these same folk really cherish their ballot initiative power. I could be wrong about this.

So, ballot initiatives. Good idea? Bad idea?

 

[durangodawood]

One good argument for them is as a bulwark against gerrymandering. We've seen way too many cases where the connivance of one party or another results in a legislature which does not represent We The People. The ballot initiative can to some extent remedy this.

 

[Fervent]

I voted bad idea, but there's a caveat to it for me. In general they're a bad idea, especially fiscal policy related ballot initiatives. But on questions of morality like marriage rights or the rights of prisoners, I feel like ballot initiatives are a good way to go. Most things are best left to the people we've hired to research and regulate in (hopefully) our interests, but there are some things that are better letting the people themselves institute.

 

[Paulos23]

I voted a good idea, but it can turn into a bad idea when big money pays for astroturf initiatives.

 

[durangodawood]

I'm leaning bad idea - on average. But I want to consider other arguments first.

 

[SimplyMe]

Overall, I believe they are a good idea but one that can be misused. I do think there should be a "higher standard" for ballot initiatives, such as in some cases requiring a super-majority for the initiative to win or requiring a large amount of signatures on a petition to get an initiative on the ballot. There are also states that have Constitutions that intentionally limit the power of the government, they wanted a check on government's power; so they required a vote in a general election to pass things like bond initiatives, where the government is going to take on debt to fund major projects.

The main issue, though, is that in many cases the state government (particularly in a state where one party has a large majority) ends up putting the interests of "the elite" above what their constituents want (the elite often just being the party leadership). I find ballot initiatives to be a good way to ensure that the will of the people is respected and put into action, particularly when the legislature isn't responding to the will of the people (knowing that they won't be tossed out over that issue).

At the same time, there do need to be some controls to prevent too many frivolous initiatives from making it to the ballot, much less having poorly thought out and reactionary ideas from becoming law.

 

[BCP1928]

So yesterday I filled in my ballot which included appx 15 ballot initiatives I had to study and ponder. And I'm like "why do I have to do this? We elect professionals for this."

1. Representative democracy - not direct democracy - was the vision of the founders, as outlined in the constitution. I realize the states can go their own way. But didnt the founders have a principled case that should apply to states just the same?

2. In the absurd "we're a republic, not a democracy" polemic, people are always going on about how terrible democracy is - especially direct democracy. Yet I get the sense these same folk really cherish their ballot initiative power. I could be wrong about this.

So, ballot initiatives. Good idea? Bad idea?

Don't forget, the "founders" also had a vision that only rich white men could vote.

 

[durangodawood]

Don't forget, the "founders" also had a vision that only rich white men could vote.

For sure. I dont submit to their reasoning "just because". Mainly I'm curious if their opinions sway other people on this question.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I went "bad idea", but just barely...there should've been an option for "mixed bag".

But I'll list out my pros and cons.

To be clear, I'm just referring to state and local level ballot measures...I don't want them for anything federal.

Pros:
-Eliminates the gerrymandering factor (I believe that was already mentioned)
-Can sidestep a "captured" legislature (although, it shouldn't just be a simple majority).
-Reduces pork opportunism, meaning, you don't have to negotiate about some unrelated issue in order to get something passed
-Bypasses the red tape that makes the process of lawmaking take longer.

Cons:
-They're often times worded in intentionally misleading ways and/or leverage "targeted approaches" to make sure the people who will vote their way are well informed about the ballot initiative, while keeping likely opponents in the dark in hopes they'll leave it blank due to unfamiliarity. (that's how Prop 8 was passed in California...many folks didn't realize that "Prop 8 looking to ban gay marriage")
-They're often structured very clumsily, because they're usually being written by regular people who aren't professionals in the realm of law and lawmaking (since the authors are often times "unfamiliar with the game", they can unintentionally leave loopholes that a biased judge and/or legislature can pounce on)
-Since they're conducted in simple majority fashion, they can allow the 51% to steamroll the 49%.
-They're not immune to "big money" factors.
-They're more susceptible to "low information voting", your average person doesn't have a staff of 15 people they can delegate funds and time to, to do research
-They can skew perceptions about which party's policies are really working, and which ones aren't, which complicates things when people go to make selections and vote for actual candidates later.

 

[durangodawood]

Cons:
-They're often times worded in intentionally misleading ways and/or leverage "targeted approaches" to make sure the people who will vote their way are well informed about the ballot initiative, while keeping likely opponents in the dark in hopes they'll leave it blank due to unfamiliarity. (that's how Prop 8 was passed in California...many folks didn't realize that there was a "Prop 8 looking to ban gay marriage")

Yes. To take advantage of voters who arent often equipped to do legislating.

-Since they're conducted in simple majority fashion, they can allow the 51% to steamroll the 49%.

No different than most representative legislation.

-They're not immune to "big money" factors.

No different than most representative legislation.

-They're more susceptible to "low information voting", your average person doesn't have a staff of 15 people they can delegate funds and time to, to do research

Massively. Even smart people dont have days and days to puzzle through all this.

-They can skew perceptions about which party's policies are really working and which ones aren't, which complicates things when people go to make selections and vote for other things.

Not sure what you mean. For example....?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Not sure what you mean. For example....?

So if people vote for a certain group of legislators or local leaders, with a certain agenda (could be social or economic), if a ballot measure is introduced that skews things, people tend to want to blame the leaders or the people who are currently office for "making things worse" when in fact, they may or may not have had nothing to do with it.

I'll give an example from my own state of Ohio.

Casino gambling was legalized in my state via a citizen-initiated ballot measure back in the 2010's
(which authorized a Casino in each of the 4 largest cities in the state)

Per ScienceDirect (citing federal studies)
A distributed lag model, used to detect year-to-year variation in crime, reveals that both commercial and Indian casinos are associated with increases in crime in the years immediately following their opening. For commercial casinos these increases were statistically significant in the host county for six years, whereas for Indian casinos a statistically significant increase occurred in the first two years after opening. Impacts on surrounding adjacent counties were also significant but generally for fewer years.


Cleveland and Cincinnati followed that pattern...

Mayor Frank Jackon was the mayor of Cleveland at that time (both before and after the Casino opened). One of the things he ran on was making the city safer, and he advocated for the same policies you'd expect a Democratic mayor of an urban city to advocate for. (Efforts to restrict gun sales in city limits, efforts to cut back on what he called "excessive policing", increasing local grants to help low-income people get housing in the city, etc... your run of the mill "metropolitan democratic mayor".

Crime shot up after the Casino opening... his opponents, expectedly, used the increase in crime (much of which undoubtedly was actually from the Casino opening) as "evidence" for "see, these progressive policies aren't working, Cleveland is less safe than it was before".

Given the changes he was advocating for, and a Casino opening at the same time, nobody can really say if his policies would've worked or not (or how well or poorly they would've worked), because of that confounding variable.

Had that citizen led ballot initiative not happened, people would have had a clearer picture instead of mere speculation.

The inverse is true as well...Ohio just passed another ballot initiative last year, to legalize marijuana. Undoubtedly, there will be some extra tax revenue coming in once more dispensaries become operational, anyone who's in a leadership position is going to have the benefit of being able to tout a "budget improvement under their leadership" that didn't really have anything to do with them or their policies.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

-Since they're conducted in simple majority fashion, they can allow the 51% to steamroll the 49%.

No different than most representative legislation.

Actually, no, since we have bicameral legislatures, it provides a "check" on that kind of steamrolling.

There are many instances where the 51% doesn't get what they want without at least some measure of approval from the other side (or by way of making some concessions to the other side)

I think that model was created with the understanding that society has no chance of "getting along" and "coexisting" if the 51% got their way on everything, every single time.

 

[Richard T]

Some state allow initiatives but they are non-binding. I have seen too where citizens voted via initiative and the Governor, AG, or legislature roadblocked it to the point no changes were made. The states that allow initiatives have various standards on how easy it is to get them on the ballot. Some are quite restrictive, so few make it. Others have too many. It seems too that many initiatives are put on the ballot to effect the other voting turnout. For instance, marijuana legalization initiatives bring more democrats to the polls to vote for candidates. Because of that abuse it seems better to forbid ballot initiatives on any voting day that includes the election of U.S. House members.

 

[durangodawood]

Actually, no, since we have bicameral legislatures, it provides a "check" on that kind of steamrolling.

How many states have split legislatures, party wise?

There are many instances where the 51% doesn't get what they want without at least some measure of approval from the other side (or by way of making some concessions to the other side)

I think that model was created with the understanding that society has no chance of "getting along" and "coexisting" if the 51% got their way on everything, every single time.

This happens less and less with both gerrymandering and the polarization of the electorate.

 

[durangodawood]

So if people vote for a certain group of legislators or local leaders, with a certain agenda (could be social or economic), if a ballot measure is introduced that skews things, people tend to want to blame the leaders or the people who are currently office for "making things worse" when in fact, they may or may not have had nothing to do with it.

I'll give an example from my own state of Ohio.

Casino gambling was legalized in my state via a citizen-initiated ballot measure back in the 2010's
(which authorized a Casino in each of the 4 largest cities in the state)

Per ScienceDirect (citing federal studies)
A distributed lag model, used to detect year-to-year variation in crime, reveals that both commercial and Indian casinos are associated with increases in crime in the years immediately following their opening. For commercial casinos these increases were statistically significant in the host county for six years, whereas for Indian casinos a statistically significant increase occurred in the first two years after opening. Impacts on surrounding adjacent counties were also significant but generally for fewer years.


Cleveland and Cincinnati followed that pattern...

Mayor Frank Jackon was the mayor of Cleveland at that time (both before and after the Casino opened). One of the things he ran on was making the city safer, and he advocated for the same policies you'd expect a Democratic mayor of an urban city to advocate for. (Efforts to restrict gun sales in city limits, efforts to cut back on what he called "excessive policing", increasing local grants to help low-income people get housing in the city, etc... your run of the mill "metropolitan democratic mayor".

Crime shot up after the Casino opening... his opponents, expectedly, used the increase in crime (much of which undoubtedly was actually from the Casino opening) as "evidence" for "see, these progressive policies aren't working, Cleveland is less safe than it was before".

Given the changes he was advocating for, and a Casino opening at the same time, nobody can really say if his policies would've worked or not (or how well or poorly they would've worked), because of that confounding variable.

Had that citizen led ballot initiative not happened, people would have had a clearer picture instead of mere speculation.

The inverse is true as well...Ohio just passed another ballot initiative last year, to legalize marijuana. Undoubtedly, there will be some extra tax revenue coming in once more dispensaries become operational, anyone who's in a leadership position is going to have the benefit of being able to tout a "budget improvement under their leadership" that didn't really have anything to do with them or their policies.

That example would be no different if the new casino law had emerged from the legislature. And in the absence of the ballot initiative process, it probably would have, given the temptation of new revenue.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That example would be no different if the new casino law had emerged from the legislature. And in the absence of the ballot initiative process, it probably would have, given the temptation of new revenue.

Right, but you could then tie it to the policy of the party/legislatures who passed it. So it'd be different in a sense that if the increase in crime due to the casino was the result of a lawmaker pushing it through, and the citizens are upset about the results, they can rightfully toss them out on their butts.

In the case I described, legislatures and local politicians got the "heat" (and had their policies blamed for the crime increase) from something that wasn't that wasn't even part of their agenda.

The example I used, crime increased under Mayor Frank Jackson largely due to the Casino coming in (which he would've been powerless to the stop), and his opponents used the increase in crime to give the voters the impression that it was a reflection of his policies. So voters had no clarity on "is what Jackson's doing helping or hurting Cleveland?"

You don't have as clear of a picture of if Party XYZ's policies are hurting or helping as much when citizens bypass the elected leaders of those parties for big changes. As to where when the changes are coming via the normal legislative process, you have a much clearer picture.

 

[durangodawood]

Right, but you could then tie it to the policy of the party/legislatures who passed it. So it'd be different in a sense that if the increase in crime due to the casino was the result of a lawmaker pushing it through, and the citizens are upset about the results, they can rightfully toss them out on their butts.

In the case I described, legislatures and local politicians got the "heat" (and had their policies blamed for the crime increase) from something that wasn't that wasn't even part of their agenda.

The example I used, crime increased under Mayor Frank Jackson largely due to the Casino coming in (which he would've been powerless to the stop), and his opponents used the increase in crime to give the voters the impression that it was a reflection of his policies. So voters had no clarity on "is what Jackson's doing helping or hurting Cleveland?"

You don't have as clear of a picture of if Party XYZ's policies are hurting or helping as much when citizens bypass the elected leaders of those parties for big changes. As to where when the changes are coming via the normal legislative process, you have a much clearer picture.

Youre still counting on the crime being blame-able on the casinos in the public mind. Why does it matter what process brought about the casinos for that? The mayors opponents will blame him regardless of who thought up the casino idea.

Maybe the casino thing would never have passed the legislature in the first place because certain legislators would be looking out for downstream effects on their mayors. But the pot of gold would override that caution, I think.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Youre still counting on the crime being blame-able on the casinos in the public mind. Why does it matter what process brought about the casinos for that? The mayors opponents will blame him regardless of who thought up the casino idea.

Maybe the casino thing would never have passed the legislature in the first place because certain legislators would be looking out for downstream effects on their mayors. But the pot of gold would override that caution, I think.

Pretend you or I are law makers in the same legislative body, and a hot button issue is drug overdoses in our community.

Hypothetically, my position is "we need to crack down more on drug possession and increase charges against the people we catch..."
Hypothetically, your position is "we need to decriminalize and regulate drugs, and focus more on treatment and addiction services rather than locking people up"

Some citizens in our area get impatient with of our bickering back and forth and think we're "moving too slow", so they decide to bypass us completely, and spearhead a clumsily structured ballot initiative to decriminalize drug possession. (but neglect to include the safeguards you would have, had you done it via the typical legislative measure...both A) out of their ignorance and lack of foresight, and B) due to the fact that allocating funding toward treatment and addiction services is something you can do, but they can't even if they wanted to as they budget sits with the legislature.

The ballot initiative passes.

Overdoses and open-air drug abuse increase (which is to be expected, they just legalized it but didn't include the half of your plan that would've helped mitigate issues)

Despite their position technically being closer to yours, they just made your position look a lot worse. And should the next town over ever have a candidate running on your plan vs. one running on my plan, the voters are going to see what happened in our town and it's going to skew perceptions, as what happened in our hypothetical city is going to look like a feather in the cap of a "get tough on drugs" position, as many are going to say "look what happened in their city after they tried it".

 

[durangodawood]

Pretend you or I are law makers in the same legislative body, and a hot button issue is drug overdoses in our community.

Hypothetically, my position is "we need to crack down more on drug possession and increase charges against the people we catch..."
Hypothetically, your position is "we need to decriminalize and regulate drugs, and focus more on treatment and addiction services rather than locking people up"

Some citizens in our area get impatient with of our bickering back and forth and think we're "moving too slow", so they decide to bypass us completely, and spearhead a clumsily structured ballot initiative to decriminalize drug possession. (but neglect to include the safeguards you would have, had you done it via the typical legislative measure...both A) out of their ignorance and lack of foresight, and B) due to the fact that allocating funding toward treatment and addiction services is something you can do, but they can't even if they wanted to as they budget sits with the legislature.

The ballot initiative passes.

Overdoses and open-air drug abuse increase (which is to be expected, they just legalized it but didn't include the half of your plan that would've helped mitigate issues)

Despite their position technically being closer to yours, they just made your position look a lot worse. And should the next town over ever have a candidate running on your plan vs. one running on my plan, the voters are going to see what happened in our town and it's going to skew perceptions, as what happened in our hypothetical city is going to look like a feather in the cap of a "get tough on drugs" position, as many are going to say "look what happened in their city after they tried it".

Youre absolutely right, it could go that way. But this exact sort of thing also happens as the result of legislation, or executive policy latitude.

Basically youre just stipulating the initiative is less likely to deal with downstream issues than legislation is. Maybe youre right. But I have this (unverified) sense that knee jerk legislation is pretty darn common too.