Skip to content
Subscribe

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.

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

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.

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.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Where your CMS allows, set the canonical URL to the original IVN article.
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

The Voters' Guide to the Direct Democracy Blues

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us