It's amazing the kind of drivel I pass off as a post sometimes. Still, I really was musing about this.
No, referenda are pretty much always bad.
That is, on any policy question, precise wording is very important, and important in ways that even a generally well-educated and sophisticated reader isn't going to understand without a whole lot of work. It's just not possible to write a set of simple policy proposals to be voted on that would meaningfully reflect the will of the electorate (in the absence of a really miraculous level of skill and good faith on the part of the drafters.)
What about all the red states where people have adopted the obamacare what's-it-called, the federal support for expanded Medicaid when their legislature wouldn't do it. Isn't that a good thing?
It is a bad idea. It's not just that the masses want the wrong thing - it's that most issues that are big enough for people to want to put them to a referendum are also too complex for people to have an informed view on, and very often are areas on which the uninformed view is likely to lead to worse results than the informed one.
2. Gets it right. Who were the most enthusiastic users of referendums in modern history? Napoleon Bonaparte and Benito Mussolini. Great advertisement fot the things.
7: That's the exception. States that have made referenda a way of life have seen much worse results from the process all told (tax revolts primarily).
Generally the ones that have had Medicaid referenda have much more restrictive rules for citizen-initiated measures, so Medicaid is one of the rare issues that gets enough support from both people and organizations to pass the gauntlet.
Economist on the terrible results of the Swiss system.
You don't want a system, generally, with competing popular mandates, where a government that wants A can feel itself compelled by an A or B referendum to try to do B instead.
Didn't the UK have a referendum about something called "Brixit" a while back? How did that go?
My favorite was when the governor's parents paid for the publicity to launch and win a referendum reïnstating the death penalty in Nebraska.
From the perspective of California, trust me, you don't want to live this way. It's not just the famously bad outcomes, like Prop 13. It's a huge chore. The SF ballot had something like 20 propositions in Nov (and there are also significant contested propositions in off-years and in primary elections, IIRC). The monied interests are hip to the wording problem and put forward multiple competing or overlapping propositions that interact in confusing ways. E.g. this year we had two state-level sports-betting props that were supported by competing segments of the gambling industry. That was relatively simple, because the heuristic was just "yes/no to more gambling?" and most people voted no anyway. But in SF we had two competing affordable housing initiatives that differed only in highly technical ways and Y/N, N/Y, N/N were all being pushed by significant constituencies.
The legislature has a really gross habit of ducking accountability and sticking anything even slightly controversial on the ballot. But if I have to read up on the details of low-income set-asides and traffic impact due to street closures every year, why am I bothering to elect a representative?
Remember when Florida had a referendum to give ex-cons the right to vote and it passed? I wonder what ever happened to that.
I guess 16 is the situation I am also coming up against - what about when the general population is saner than the elected politicians in charge? The problem then is that the elected politicians just straight up won't implement a policy against their own desires.
18: It's harder to get better representatives than to win a single common-sense initiative of course, but ultimately progress is going to be minimal unless you get the former. No easy bypass.
18: basically yes. And that's the way it should be! https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s7.html Burke is talking here about voters in one constituency ordering their MP how to vote on a certain issue - but that's essentially a referendum at a single-constituency level, and his arguments against it hold for national referenda as well.
And as 15 says implicitly (I think) constant referenda are actually bad for accountability because the representatives can just shrug it off by having yet another referendum, and if things go badly wrong then it isn't their fault.
21: Yes, although some of that is learned behavior from representatives being punished by recalls and antitax initiatives when they do things that inflame the state's right wing.
Not being willing to pass any substantive housing legislation (when it's more about rules of the road, not taxation) is more specific to SF, imx. But it's an example of the worst of the curdling.
I thought this might be fake so I looked up the archived sample ballots and it was true: in 1993, voters were asked:
Shall it be the policy of the people of San Francisco to allow Police Officer Bob Geary to decide when he may use his puppet Brendan O'Smarty when on duty?
It narrowly passed.
Was that the first time California authorized killer robots?
I'm just feeling very burnt out on the whole concept of Republicans.
I'm looking forward to voting on policies concerning dialysis clinics until the fascist takeover limits referenda in reeducated former blue states.
Clearly referenda aren't the right workaround, but isn't it so goddamn annoying that Reoublicans exist to be worked around in the first place? It's so hard to govern even when everyone is smart and well-intentioned.
The thing I don't understand about the killer robots is didn't Dallas police already do that years ago to stop a mass shooter? Do most departments have rules against it?
I had a local conservative reach out to my local blog alter-ego, and we had a correspondence last week until I bailed, citing how fruitless it was proving to be. She was so goddamn mean-spirited and just kept asserting that if we provide free health care to everyone, then people struggling with addictions won't hit rock bottom anymore, and won't be motivated to change. (Also she doesn't understand why I want to control everyone.)
(Also she doesn't know who I am, nor that my kids have taken horseback riding lessons from her.) Anyway, I ended it.
I really work to avoid talking politics with terrible people, and I still have a grumpy hangover from talking with her, despite it being almost a week since I ended the conversation.
How do we feel about local referendums? Is it the same everywhere in the US that property tax increases to fund schools, libraries, stadiums etc require a referendum? Is that a good thing?
29: Why would one feel more warmly to local than statewide? Back before the antitax revolt California county boards could simply vote to increase the tax rate, although I believe within some parameters set by the state. Fine by me. (I don't know if local votes are required in every state. I think it's near-standard to require them for bond issues, because you see them in Texas a lot; but those are only one of the ways local tax rates can increase.)
At the moment, I'd be over the moon if we just allowed local tax increases by a 50%+1 popular vote rather than the 2/3 now required for most popular causes.
Referenda - großartige Idee! Was könnte überhaupt schiefgehen?
The thing I don't understand about the killer robots is didn't Dallas police already do that years ago to stop a mass shooter? Do most departments have rules against it?
Likewise. I can't see why this needed a change in a law rather than a change in police rules about what weapons can and can't be used. I would have thought the situation with the law is more like "police officers may use lethal force as a last resort to protect themselves or others from a danger to life and must not use it recklessly", rather than going into details about what sort of weapons they can use. If it's necessary for an otherwise unarmed police officer to hit someone on the head with a stuffed swordfish in order to save an innocent life, I would hope that the law would be on that officer's side without the need for a new bit of legislation authorising the use of stuffed swordfish.
I didn't know about the Weimar referenda, but I liked that they required a majority of eligible voters, rather than of actual voters.
27, 32: If Bankman-Fried hadn't lost all his money, he would have been able to bribe enough of the Supervisors to prevent this.
27: For those who. like me, forgot about this incident -- https://www.texastribune.org/2016/07/08/use-robot-kill-dallas-suspect-first-experts-say/
33: Unfortunately, that proviso didn't much help in the end.
Though with significant parts of elites and the population as a whole against the idea of a republic, I'm not sure that better technical design of referenda or their elimination made the difference. On the other hand, the postwar West German constitution basically prohibited them at the national level.
I don't know if local votes are required in every state. I think it's near-standard to require them for bond issues, because you see them in Texas a lot; but those are only one of the ways local tax rates can increase.
Yeah, municipal bond issues pretty much always require a popular vote but setting the mill rate for regular operating expenses usually doesn't. Some cities have caps on how much the rate can rise, which is the sort of policy that probably does often result from a referendum, but that's a one-time thing rather than a new vote each year.
Clearly referenda aren't the right workaround, but isn't it so goddamn annoying that Reoublicans exist to be worked around in the first place? It's so hard to govern even when everyone is smart and well-intentioned.
I hear ya. As always, the problem with America is Americans.
Is there an argument that referenda played a significant part in the (overdetermined) weakening of Weimar? Wikipedia summarizes about the 1929 reparations referendum that "The significance that the referendum had for the rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party is disputed historically."
Is the idea that because both leftist (1926) and rightist (1929) referenda passed by wide margins but failed due to turnout requirements, more people got fed up with the system as unrepresentative?
Did a post disappear? I had asked a question about the graphic novel adaptation of Apsley Cherry-Garrard's memoir, and just now went looking to see if it had been answered, but I can't find the conversation.
Yep. I can see on the back end "As long as..." and "Let's see if posting works on Thanksgiving" but I can't find them on the main screen anymore.
And furthermore, your query coincided with me posting, so I wonder if I pushed something off the front page? Idk.
I was very opposed to state- level referenda when I lived in CA.
I kind of like them in MA, because the process here is better. You can only have one question at a time. Additionally, with the exception of constitutional amendments, the legislature is free to modify the law. They did that recently with a law providing chickens with humane living conditions, because it was argued that the cost of eggs were about to go up too much.
The process is often used as a way to get legislators to act. That's how health reform happened. The groups sponsoring a referendum to expand MassHealth, raise rates to Medicare level and fine employers who didn't provide insurance dropped the initiative when the legislature passed a bill.
And furthermore, your query coincided with me posting, so I wonder if I pushed something off the front page? Idk.
No, they're gone from the archive pages too.
Thanks -- I found the conversation by looking up the post titles from 41. Ajay didn't answer my question, so his pay will be withheld until he meets expectations.
On the other hand gay marriage and legal weed may never have started passing in legislatures but for referenda leading the way.
Alaska's Ranked Choice Voting system was also put in place by a referendum. They have been used for good from time to time but that's more an indictment of the failures of other parts of the system than an endorsement.
45: I can't find it either but if you ask the question again here I will answer it with contrite alacrity.
39: I'm not sure that the sentiment was specific to referenda, and it's been years since I had any sort of command of the details. The general idea was/is that the Weimar constitution had too many ways to get around the standard means of passing laws, and that contributed to the general chaos that led to Weimar's collapse.
The Grundgesetz cleaned all of that up: no referendum process, parties had to get 5% of the vote to be entitled to proportional representation, changing a semi-presidential system to an entirely parliamentary system, no provisions for rule by decree, requiring a constructive vote of no confidence (i.e., parliament can't just bring down a government, it has to vote affirmatively to replace the current one with a new one), and probably a couple more institutional fixes that I'm forgetting.
Contrite Alacrity is the name of Ajay's next band.
43. So the legislature thinks that cheap eggs justify cruelty to chickens, but the electorate doesn't?
52: Pretty much. But the electorate may have changed their minds, because cruel chicken eggs went up a lot in price between when they passed the law. It's $5-$7 dozen for the deluxe pasture raised ones. The amount of space the electorate voted for would have been $3.50/ dozen. I think part of the issue was that we could not enforce our standards on other states, so effectively only MA raised eggs could be sold here.
We buy the cruelty-free eggs, as a way to slow down the natural temptation to poison animals after retirement.
Also, I've gotten so used to the taste of the fancy chicken that I don't like the cheaper stuff at the Giant Eagle. Bell and Evans chicken, you can taste the kindness.
referenda are trash for all of the reasons above, although yes apparently the only way the corrupt stranglehold of the railroad bosses could be broken in california back in the day. fine, we need to move on. alas our trash federal sup ct has i believe foreclosed the only achievable in the near term reform, which would be to ban paid signature gathering in any way whatsoever i.e. not just the straight up $/signature but also e.g. sending out workers to signature gather on the clock for unions. ban it all grrrr.
ll as i gather grad school program admission decisions in the us are generally sent out in mid-feb, is that correct? i don't want to stress the kid more by asking him when he'll know, but would like myself to know! and the dept he is applying to here in the bay area is remarkably close-lipped about this. thanks in advance!l>
which would be to ban paid signature gathering in any way whatsoever
Paid signature collecting is banned? I thought money was free speech?
57: I believe it is allowed, but dq, an enemy of free speech, would like it to be banned
Ok, that makes more sense. I've got covid brain this week and reading comprehension is difficult.
alas our trash federal sup ct has i believe foreclosed the only achievable in the near term reform, which would be to ban paid signature gathering in any way whatsoever i.e. not just the straight up $/signature but also e.g. sending out workers to signature gather on the clock for unions. ban it all grrrr
We wouldn't be ready to do it even if we had the authority - multiple times now the legislature has passed bills banning paying per signature, and both Brown and Newsom vetoed those.
(Even those didn't ban paying gatherers by the hour or on salary - so as to remain hospitable to union campaigns.)
56.last: I haven't been involved on either side of grad admissions in many years, but mid-February sounds right as earliest notification but IIRC it could be as late as mid-March. I think there's a final decision date in April but everyone should be notified by then. Unless you're the expensive school in NYC who told me I was accepted in early April with absolutely no financial support, which I considered equivalent to a rejection.
yep! ucb is a super longshot bc the department has a strong policy against admitting their own but they basically told him "you don't ask, you never get." he's also applying to ucsc, penn, chicago & toronto, at least that's the state of play as i understand it. he's into generative syntax & lang revitalization, including both with respect to welsh. his thesis uses medieval welsh poetry as data for some highly technical syntactical inquiry that's waaaay over my head lol.
65: Very cool! Those are all great programs, actually probably better than Berkeley if his focus is generative syntax, though I get including it due to the historical angle. UCSC in particular is a top program; several of my undergrad classmates went there for grad school. As I'm sure you know, the housing situation in Santa Cruz is exceptionally horrific these days, but aside from that it would be a great choice.
maybe santa cruz might get a bit of a break from sv layoffs???? so depressing. but yes, all v exciting for him & we are absurdly proud just from copy editing his application materials 💓.
Yeah, sounds like he's doing great. Glad to hear it.
you're so lovely teo - thank you, & hope your kiddos are doing super great!
That is very exciting dq! Best of luck to the kiddo.
On the question of referenda, I have to say that I don't hate our system. We get 2 or 3 a year, at most, and I think the language review before they are approved is rigorous enough to avoid over-complexity.
We're probably going to have more than usual in 2024, because our red lege can put them on the ballot. That's how we got the 'born alive' measure this year that got beaten back.
I wonder if NY and NJ might benefit from a referendum that changes party control over primary election ballots. Candidate placement on each ballot should be random, rather than designed to effectuate establishment preferences. The lege won't change the law on this, so you're basically stuck.