Skip to content

The Voters' Guide to the Direct Democracy Blues

The Voters' Guide to the Direct Democracy Blues
Published:

I   knew we were in trouble when the official Voters' Guide arrived earlier this   year. It was the size of a small-town phone book, studded with legalistic   and often arcane discussions, with choices  like Props 7 and 10, that sometimes seemed to repeat   themselves. Others asked us to vote “yes” in order to say   “no” (Prop 8) and all told, would have drained more than $21 billion   dollars out of our state’s already depleted treasury.

My   first thought was, why do we vote on so many issues?  Between legislative   work-arounds and state constitutional amendments, Californians voted   on 12 state-wide measures in November and a total of 21 such measures   through all of 2008 – far and awa the most of any state (second place was Colorado with 14).  And this total doesn’t include local   measures on issues as crucial as school funding and zoning regulations.

Four   of the nation’s wealthiest men took major roles in supporting five   of this year’s initiatives, and if you think T. Boone Pickens was   only interested in the welfare of the planet when he supported more   wind power, check out his investment in that technology.

Isn’t   it the job of our elected representatives to make the tough decisions   on our behest?  Isn’t direct democracy reserved for quaint town   hall meetings in New England?  We normally govern our nation on the   principle that a small number of people are elected to make decisions   on national, state and local levels on behalf of the rest of us.    If we don’t care for their votes, we can boot them out of office next   time around.

Yet California’s voter initiative  process has made direct democracy the norm for so many issues that the  work of our representatives in the Legislature has become nearly  perfunctory.  (Well, there is that annual haggle over the budget – but  that’s just good, clean political fun).  The fact is, voters have taken  away the right of our legislative body to control major chunks of  California’s budget such as education and infrastructure funding.   Initiatives have also removed many of the tough ethical calls from the  Legislature, including the right to use medical marijuana and the right  of same-sex couples to marry.  We voters recently decided to cut short  a governor’s four-year-term much as a sports team owner might fire a  manager mid-season because things just weren’t going very well.

In   the recent vote against same-sex marriage, there is now evidence that   numerous Californians regret their choice.  Some may not even have   understood what their “yes” vote meant on Prop 8, since it was actually   a “no” vote on the right of same sex couples to marry.  And   why would anyone be surprised that there is rampant confusion?  People   aren’t reading newspapers anymore, and yet we expect our citizens   to consume, digest and intelligently act on an encyclopedia of pro and   con positions.

These   decisions are being taken on by the populous while we continue to pay   our legislators handsomely to do other things.  Are we getting   the value we should from Sacramento?  Don’t the rest of us deserve   some pay for our hard work wrestling with the tough issues of governing   the nation’s largest state?

Perhaps   the answer is to set the bar higher for ballot qualification (Read about the process here).  Despite what sounds   like daunting odds, it turns out to be pretty easy to get a measure   in front of the voters.  But there are no requirements for keeping   the language of the initiative clear, brief and in regular English or   for providing that kind of simplified, unbiased explanation to anyone   asked to sign the qualifying petition.  If page after page of explanation   is required in a voters’ guide, then a minimal pro-and-con statement   should also be part of the requirement before a signature is given.

Public information about the cost of the ballot initiatives   process itself should be publicized.  California’s citizens need   to understand the true cost of going direct – including the lost value   of taking so much decision-making out of the hands of our paid legislators.    Then, direct democracy could be repositioned as the exception to the   rule, rather than a mainstay of California elections.

Alan Markow

Professional writer and communicator 40+ years. Senior corporate communications exec in high tech, telecom, banking, and chemicals. Navy journalist during Vietnam era. IVN blogger since inception. Political views range from liberal to libertarian.

IVN is rated Center by AllSides and High Credibility by MBFC — follow our independent journalism in your feed.

Add IVN on Google

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.