Lessons from California: The perils of extreme democracy

I'm not a fan of direct democracy but this article isn't factually based. Notice they only give one specific example. That one example is Prop 13 which limited the amount of taxes that could be put on property and required a two-thirds majority to pass any tax increases.<p>Now let me ask this: If Prop 13 is such a hindrance why is California in the top 5 highest taxing states across the board?<p>Beyond that most of the initiatives are either social issues (Gay Marriage) or done by Percentage (Prop 98 that requires 40% of general fund spending be spent on Education).<p>So California's problems are not because of direct democracy. The reason the Economist is writing about this now is because they are (by their own admission) a left-leaning publication and Democrats in California believe the solution to California's problems is a tax hike. But they can't get it done without a couple Republicans because of the 2/3rd rule (imposed by Prop 13, again the only named example in the article). So the problem from their immediate perspective is "Direct Democracy".<p>But mark my words, some day down the line Republicans will get power in California and they will want to cut money to public schools. When that happens I'd bet all the money in my Bank Account the Democrats are going to be holding Direct Democracy up as their savior.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury." - Someone, probably with a T in their name. [1]<p>Having one or two layers of bureaucracy can provide a powerful buffer to voters doing things for immediate gains, or based on popular trends. Certainly some of how modern governments are set up is based on the time information took to travel and the distances involved hundreds (or thousands) of years ago, but I don't think that this point was lost on the early founders of democratic systems.<p>People (especially Americans) often forget that a bureaucracy that slows things down can provide the occasional benefit, right along with all its costs.<p>[1]: <a href="http://www.lorencollins.net/tytler.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.lorencollins.net/tytler.html</a>

I'll preface this by saying I'm largely a supporter of the referendum process in my state of California, and I would be hesitant to give up the power it has given me. That's not to say I don't see some of the big problems caused by this system, though I'm not persuaded that the author has offered very practical or substantial solutions.<p>"Initiatives should be far harder to introduce. They should be shorter and simpler, so that voters can actually understand them. They should state what they cost, and where that money is to come from. And, if successful, initiatives must be subject to amendment by the legislature."<p>I disagree that initiatives should be harder to introduce. In the last election, I had friends volunteering to collect petition signatures for the legalization of marijuana initiative, and it was a struggle to coordinate an effort large enough to collect the required signatures, testing the limits of grassroots mobilization. If such a controversial topic as marijuana legalization, with its army of local proponents in California, struggled to motivate enough people to support a ballot initiative, then I must ask how difficult it would be to organize an effort focusing on more mundane topics which may be just as critical to our fiscal situation.<p>I don't see how a limit on complexity could be determined or enforced, but I will agree that there is a lack of clear information on the likely ramifications of a given ballot initiative. A better solution here would be to have trusted 3rd parties providing assessments of various initiatives, perhaps a state-level equivalent to the Congressional Budget Office offering credible fiscal assessments.<p>One major improvement might be for initiatives to go through a process of competitive runoff selection, where petition signatories could sign on to an overarching policy goal (which is pretty much the only information they're given before signing the petition in any case), such as the legalization of marijuana, and then would be able to select from a variety of different implementations of that policy goal, with the winning implementation getting all the petition signatures.<p>One place I will agree with the author would be to allow our legislators a greater ability to amend these initiatives, and if we're unhappy with the way they exercise this power, we can always show them the door next election cycle (or just recall them if they really pissed us off).<p>I wouldn't give up my initiative power without a fight, and I am strongly encouraged that an unpopular law is only a petition and referendum away from redress. It's not for nothing that California is the R&#38;D center of this laboratory of democracy we lovingly call the US states, with the California initiative process leading the way on many social issues, which then spread to the rest of the country. We should be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water.

Wow, they're really going to argue that this is about costs? :|<p>I think the real problem is that there's still a state government. The people who know how to balance the budget best and know what needs/wants they need to fulfill are the people in local communities and counties. Give them more power to deal with the budget and make the state government a council of delegates from each of those counties and you won't have much of a problem anymore.<p><i>Indeed, in their guise of “Publius” in the “Federalist Papers”, Madison and Hamilton warn against the dangerous “passions” of the mob and the threat of “minority factions” (ie, special interests) seizing the democratic process.</i><p>They wanted a republic where representatives were accountable to their constitutients. That doesn't happen anymore. Too often do representatives ignore the ideas and opinions of their constituents. A representative should be asking his constiuents wtf to do instead of being completely autonomous (except on election day). The minority factions are the representatives themselves which is why it's very important to keep any and all direct democracy actions.<p><i>Initiatives should be far harder to introduce. They should be shorter and simpler, so that voters can actually understand them. They should state what they cost, and where that money is to come from. And, if successful, initiatives must be subject to amendment by the legislature.</i><p>So give less voice to the people who actually make up the state. Shorter and simpler because people are dumb? Why not make them longer with more arguments to support them, or have them written in 2-3 different ways as a counter to any biased/emotionally-heavy language?<p>The initiatives are voted on on a state-level. It's difficult to estimate costs on something like that and it's difficult to say where the money will come from. I guess it's a good idea though because then the marijuana legalization initiative could say "this will cost $0, and will earn us $X".<p>They shouldn't be subject to amendment by the legislature. They should be subject to amendment by the citizens. That might curb any special interest group bullshit.

Unlike California (37 million), <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy</a> is more suitable for smaller nations like Switzerland (7 million)

News at 11: Pure democracy is unstable and should be avoided.<p>/read your histories of Athens to see why

Pass a bill requiring the budget to be balanced. It's that simple.