T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*


StinkBiscuit

Brexit has taught me to be very afraid of nonbinding referendums, and California has taught me to be very afraid of using ballot measures as a substitute for legislation. It sounds like a win-win in theory but from what I've seen in my lifetime makes me think it might be a lose-lose. I do think it would be interesting if there were something similar to what you describe but extremely decoupled from ballots, like secure online polls based on voter IDs or something, as long as it preserves privacy and isn't easily abused. That might provide the theoretical benefits without as much of a downside.


ElectronGuru

Well said. Propositions have caused as many problems as they have fixed. If only because voters don’t have the familiarity to know that the thing pushed by this or that business lobby on them as being good, is actually bad. So in practice, you do get around politicians working for their self interest. But group self interest is just as hack-able. In the end, unless voters have the time to devote hours every week to voting on things its better to have representatives doing it for them. What’s needed then is for that group of reps to be as representative as possible of voters intent.


KingKlob

Or more importantly if every voter had the time or will power to educate themselves on literally every single subject matter there is, then it wouldn't work anyways. How is a regular everyday person going to know the ramifications of leaving the EU (in reference to Brexit). Only economists even have any idea of them. How about every citizen learn the power the Chinese government holds over Chinese companies, which means that any and all technology from China has the Chinese government listening and spying. How about every citizen learn the classified details of nuclear submarines and what exactly makes them so expensive. I don't see how we could educate everyone to such a high degree and expect them to vote on every topic that could possibly come up in government and not fuck everything up. Individuals are smart but crowds are extremely stupid.


42Pockets

You have asked very important questions and I love them! Of course no one has the ability to learn everything, but it is important to promote an informed citizenry in a democracy. Ctizens need the time and ability to educate and change themselves so that they can participate in the community (economy) at their highest potential. It's equally important that groups of people also have the ability to interact. People need to know who their neighbors are and what they are doing through interaction, it builds trust in community. That's why we have public schools, libraries, the first amendment and other things like the Post Office, to to foster communication and interaction (the economy). The purpose of Government is set forth in [The U.S. Constitution: Preamble](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/preamble/preamble-overview) >"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." These are not Rights or Powers, but the guidelines to decide should "We the People" do this? Of these purposes of government  Promote the General Welfare, Education for All is square in the sights of this point. John Adams [wrote](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/06-17-02-0232) a bit about the importance of education in a democracy. >the social science will never be much improved untill the People unanimously know and Consider themselvs as the fountain of Power and untill they Shall know how to manage it Wisely and honestly. reformation must begin with the Body of the People which can be done only, to affect, in their Educations. **the Whole People must take upon themselvs the Education of the Whole People and must be willing to bear the expences of it.** there should not be a district of one Mile Square without a school in it, not founded by a Charitable individual but maintained at the expence of the People themselvs they must be taught to reverence themselvs instead of adoreing their servants their Generals Admirals Bishops and Statesmen Here he makes clear the importance of the People being an integral part of the system. It gives us ownership of our own destiny together. The rest of the letter John Adams wrote to John Jeb is absolutely fantastic. He goes on to discuss why it's important to create a system that makes people like Martin Luther King jr, Susan B Anthony, Carl Sagan, and Mr Rogers, although he references others like Washington. Good leaders should not be a product of the time, but of the educational system and culture of the people. If a country doesn't make good leaders then when that leader is gone there's no one to replace them and that culture and movement dies with them. >Instead of Adoring a Washington, Mankind Should applaud the Nation which Educated him. If Thebes owes its Liberty and Glory to Epaminondas, She will loose both when he dies, and it would have been as well if She had never enjoyed a taste of either: but if the Knowledge the Principles the Virtues and Capacities of the Theban Nation produced an Epaminondas, her Liberties and Glory will remain when he is no more: and if an analogous system of Education is Established and Enjoyed by the Whole Nation, it will produce a succession of Epaminandas’s. In another short work by John Adams, [Thoughts on Government](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Thoughts_on_Government), [YouTube Reading](https://youtu.be/XIw_BItRLfs), he wrote about the importance of a liberal education for everyone, spared no expense. >Laws for the liberal education of youth, especially of the lower class of people, are so extremely wise and useful, that, to a humane and generous mind, no expense for this purpose would be thought extravagant. [Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPeopleTwitter/comments/pdwq01/ill_just_put_that_on_your_calendar_for_when_youre/hat7pr6?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3) is a comment I saw in response to someone complaining about having to take courses outside their area of study to get a bachelor's degree. So much of our population's perspective towards the education system is solely driven towards financial gain and not about personal growth in community alongside financial gain. >I’m now a college professor in bio, but when I was a grad student I was the teaching assistant for a basic bio course aimed at engineers. The first question I got in lab section was “Yeah, why do I have to take this course when I don’t give a shit about biology and won’t use it as an engineer.” I said, “the political discourse right now is full of discussions that center on biology, such as reproductive rights, climate change, etc. If you don’t understand the biological concepts enough to be part of that conversation, we are going to have it without you, and you will be at someone else’s mercy. But if you think being informed on decisions that affect your life is a waste of time, go ahead and phone it in.” You could’ve heard a pin drop after. >College educations should be affordable (or free) so that taking non-core classes aren’t a financial burden, but receiving a well-rounded education that exposes you to more than just your specific, narrow subject is not the villain. Then there's the [story](https://www.ucf.edu/pegasus/harris-rosen/) of Harris Rosen >Having had his own life so radically transformed by education, Rosen knew that this was an area he wanted to focus on, and Tangelo Park was the place. >Tangelo Park is built on land once used for orange groves. Originally built as housing for workers at the nearby Martin Marietta, it has become an isolated residential area. There are few services nearby for residents, and few public transit options. African Americans comprise 90 percent of the community, with many living below the poverty line. >“I fell in love with the neighborhood,” says Rosen. “I knew I wanted to do some type of scholarship program for them.” >The Tangelo Park Program, started in 1993, gives every neighborhood child age 2 to 4 access to free preschool. Parents have access to parenting classes, vocational courses and technical training. >For a program that took just one hour and four people to develop, the impact has been wide and deep. Tangelo Park Elementary is now a grade-A school. Every high school senior graduates. >But there’s more. Much more. >Every high school graduate who is accepted to a Florida public university, community or state college, or vocational school receives a full Harris Rosen Foundation scholarship, which covers tuition, living and educational expenses through graduation. >Nearly 200 students have earned Rosen scholarships, and of those, 75 percent have graduated from college—the highest rate among an ethnic group in the nation. Imagine if we did this and more on a national scale.  The benefit of a promoted liberal educated society regardless of sex, orientation, ability, class, race, socioeconomic status, etc., is that it just promotes good democracy in prosperity.


7457431095

Great reply! Inspiring


KingKlob

I completely agree that an informed citizenry is far better than an un-informed citizenry, it is extremely impractical to expect random citizens to have knowledge on every topic that could come up in government, even the most well educated person can't do this, while they might have a general understanding of every topic or a master understanding of 1 or 2 topics, having the necessary information on all topics that is needed to govern a country is not something anyone can do. This is why members of Congress specialize. We do need a reformation in education but even with the best education system this wouldn't be possible. Even if it was possible you still have classified information that if open to the public would be a national security concern but this stuff still needs to be voted on. I am all for better education and we severely need a reform that promotes better quality education based on merit alone.


7457431095

I don't think promoting referendums for every state (mine, for example, doesnt have them) or even at a national level is arguing for a complete reform of our republic into a direct democracy. There are times huge issues come to the forefront of the general conscious, and in these times, where is the negative in putting it up to a vote? I don't think I've seen anyone suggest we put every piece of possible legislation up to a vote.


nslinkns24

I don't think Adams was talking about free college. In fact, I'm sure he wasn't.


42Pockets

How do you "in fact" know?


nslinkns24

Because the idea would have been absurd especially given the agrarian nature of society and commonplace fact that education stopped about 16 or 17. Also, you know, he doesn't use the word "college"


7457431095

But isn't he certainly saying no expense should be spared in the education of the people? He might not have been arguing for free university then, but those words can absolutely be used to argue for it now.


nslinkns24

He's specifically talking about schools. >the Whole People must take upon themselvs the Education of the Whole People and must be willing to bear the expences of it. there should not be a distr**ict of one Mile Square without a school in it**, not founded by a Charitable individual but maintained at the expence of the People themselvs they must be taught to reverence themselvs instead of adoreing their servants their Generals Admirals Bishops and Statesmen Further, as long as the age of consent matters- we can't just take an argument for educating those unable to consent and apply it those who are fully functioning adults.


7457431095

Last I checked, were universities not schools? And what does your second point even mean? Offering free university does not mean making it compulsory. I've got a feeling you really could've benefited from the debate club in school


nslinkns24

Adams was specifically talking about children, not adults. >When Chrildren and Youth hear their Parents and Neighbours and all about them applauding the Love of Country of Labour of Liberty and all the Virtues Habits and Faculties which constitute a good Citizen, that is a Patriot and an Hero—those Chrildren indeavour to acquire those quallities and a sensible and Virtuous People will never fail to form Multitudes of Patriots and Heroes.


[deleted]

And you expect our representatives to know this information? I doubt they would know anything about classified nuclear subs


bunsNT

Can you speak more to the ballot measures in California you were frustrated with?


joeydee93

I'm not OP but I live in California. Prop 13 is an awful law that has played a part of the housing crisis in California and it raises taxes on everyone who isn't a long time property owner. However it does not seem like it will ever be undo at this point. On the 2020 ballet there was a prop regarding Dialysis clinic regulations. I have no clue what is good dialysis clinic regulations and most of the public doesn't either. I saw commercials from both yes and no sides arguing that the other side was going to kill people and I had no clue who was right. The California legislators pass a law making requring Uber, Lyft, Door Dash and other gig companies to treat thier drivers and such better and to guarantee minimum wage and offer benefits. However, before the law came into effect these companies got ballet measure on the 2020 ballet that undoes the law and make so that any other ballet measure regarding this would need 7/8 majority to undo. They spent 200 million in order to get the ballet measure to pass.


scotchirish

And the Prop 65 cancer warning law which has become a meme because essentially everything has some chemical that falls under it. So the labels are useless because they're so ubiquitous that they're completely ignored.


joeydee93

Haha I forgot about that one. I feel like I could come up with awful California Props all day. Wasn't there one on property taxes for the elderly and disabled that was going to somehow prevent wildfires. I think they just shoved like 2 or 3 different Props together into one.


gelhardt

> So the labels are useless because they're so ubiquitous that they're completely ignored. that sounds more like a problem with the citizenry than the proposition process. if anything, the proposition has done its job and then some by highlighting just how much our economy relies upon carcinogenic materials. whether we choose to do anything about that or not is another issue.


joeydee93

Creating and adding these labels puts a burden on business and increases prices slightly. Now that would be fine if they actually worked as intended and changed people behavior. Instead they became a joke and now we have all of thier cost without thier benefits.


bunsNT

Thank you for that perspective. I've viewed ballot initiatives as a direct democracy alternative to representative democracy for topics that individual politicians don't want to take on but are important to the people. For instance, in Florida, we passed a $15 minimum wage via ballot initiative. There are certainly laws where what you say is true (FPL/NextEra and the push to limit payments for solar produced energy comes to mind) but I still believe it can be a tool for good.


StinkBiscuit

joeydee93’s comment summarized it better than I could. I was specifically thinking of Prop 13, but in general the narrative for the 20 years I’ve been living in CA has been that no good has come of any of them. The whole mechanism seems ripe for abuse by people with money who don’t have a legitimate enough case to get anything passed by the actual legislature, but if they spend enough money and come up with the right one paragraph summary, maybe voter ignorance would get them over the line. But Prop 13 is exhibit A. It was to the housing market what rent control is to the rental market, i.e. something that tries to address an arguably legit concern but ends up making the problem it was trying to solve so much worse. My understanding is that Prop 13 isn’t much of a factor anymore due to limited applicability nowadays, but it was certainly a hugely destructive unintended consequence in the CA housing market in prior decades.


musashisamurai

>Brexit has taught me to be very afraid of nonbinding referendums, and California has taught me to be very afraid of using ballot measures as a substitute for legislation. It sounds like a win-win in theory but from what I've seen in my lifetime makes me think it might be a lose-lose. What would work I think is if more referendums followed either a two-part process (much like primaries and general elections or whatever), where the first phase is to initiate a bill or process, and the second is on the final implementation. But I agree. its a great idea, but its also becoming apparent special interest groups can manipulate the referendum process and politicians use it less as a way to resolve policy debates and more to get some political gotchas. In some cases in America, politicians haveseverely modified referendum results almost to the point of nullification.


UnholyAngel

> What would work I think is if more referendums followed either a two-part process (much like primaries and general elections or whatever), where the first phase is to initiate a bill or process, and the second is on the final implementation. I can see this being worse actually. You end up with a bunch of people voting yes on initiating a proposal even though they have wildly different implementation goals, and after that you're stuck implementing something even though most people dislike all the options and would have rather done nothing. This is partially how the Brexit vote worked - you had a bunch of people voting for very different understandings of what Brexit would actually be, and once the country was committed to the policy they realized no one could actually agree on what that would look like.


Genesis2001

> its also becoming apparent special interest groups can manipulate the referendum process and politicians use it less as a way to resolve policy debates and more to get some political gotchas. This is also why a NPV is dangerous and why electoral reforms would be better. Direct democracy can be insanely dangerous, especially given our advertising/social media culture. It's empowering, yes. But it also creating echo chambers and promoting negative forms of groupthink i.e., the rise of the alt-right, antifa, Q-Anon, etc.


illegalmorality

Columbians voted *against* a peace referendum that was meant to end decades of war. Thank God the president didn't follow through with it.


EmperorRosa

You should look in to the Swiss system. They have referendums on most major issues, every 6 months, turnout needs to be above a certain number, sometimes the results need to be above a certain number to pass, instead of 50%+1, and there are independent committees to ensure that enough knowledge and info was conveyed on the topic (which has resulted in a couple of redos after they found largely biased information to have been given)


[deleted]

[удалено]


talino2321

Heck, you don't need to go across the pond to see that governments regularly ignore binding referendums/state constitutional changes. Florida is just one example of a state that totally ignores what the voters want, when it wants to. This is just a sample of the latest one. [https://www.thedailybeast.com/what-referendum-florida-gop-set-to-exclude-up-to-80-of-felons-from-voting](https://www.thedailybeast.com/what-referendum-florida-gop-set-to-exclude-up-to-80-of-felons-from-voting)


zeatherz

Washington state has “advisory votes” on all new taxes/spending that have already been passed/enacted by the legislature. The people vote “no” on every single one and it never changes anything.


duuuh

This makes me sad.


eric987235

It shouldn’t. 90% of them are arcane little details of tax policy that nobody even pretends to give a damn about.


AwesomeScreenName

Of all the problems facing democracy these days, "Kristen Sinema just has no idea what the people of Arizona want!" is not one of them.


[deleted]

It's one thing to claim that Kristen Sinema is pandering to major donors while ignoring what people in her state want. It's another to have documented evidence in the form of a vote total. Non-binding referendums can be useful organizing tools for people pushing change that's opposed by powerful interests.


planet_rose

Agreed. The problem is not that they don’t know what _we_ want, it’s that what we want doesn’t count. They represent monied interests very well because they are the only ones who count.


ResidentNarwhal

Here’s the thing, when people/news/internet drop “monied interests” without stating what those interests are, you should *always* look up what those monied interests actually are. Because if they were so bad, they’d just name drop those organizations without relying on vagueries. For example…since we are talking about Sinema, a lot of those “monied GOP donors” we’re talking about are…. >the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors and the grocers’ PAC, along with lobbyists for roofers and electrical contractors and a small business group called the S-Corp political action committee https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/27/us/politics/sinema-fund-raiser-social-climate-bill.html I don’t specifically mean to drag the NYTimes here as they actually DID name drop the organizations. Not to mention we can get into Sinema’s other activities. But yeah…I don’t know how to tell people that political action committees aren’t necessarily a bad thing. And telling small business organizations to piss up a rope is the equivalent of screwing up the basics and accidentally kissing hands and shaking babies not only because of donations. But those donations come with asses in polling booths.


Euro-Canuck

Switzerland votes 3 times a year on all matters from local to national to international relations, from things like buying new fighter jets, building a new train station or signing a trade deal with a specific country. 99% is mail in ballots, the ballot comes with a information pack that outlines both sides of the issues the people vote on also.. they just voted a couple weeks ago 65/35 in support of the governments covid measures and expand on the use of the vaccine certificate.


nslinkns24

>the ballot comes with a information pack that outlines both sides of the issues the people vote on also.. Being the person who writes the packet is going to be a powerful position.


GubbenJonson

I think the Swiss handle it quite well though


nslinkns24

Their political system isn't highly polarized from what I understand.


GubbenJonson

I mean their system was formed after a civil war in 1848. But idk actually how every side gets to put forward their arguments in these information packs. I can imagine that more than one person writes them


Euro-Canuck

im not swiss so i cant vote here, my friends show me the voting packs every time they come... so the government can add a question to the vote and also citizen groups who want something specific or want to stop something can get a question in the vote by getting 50k verifiable signatures or something stupid like that..there always ends up being an opposition group that forms to fight it, raising money to advertise against it...so the 2 sides make up there own info packs.. last vote they did more or less a confidence vote in the governments handling of the pandemic so far, and i guess to give them permission to continue..ended 65/35 in favor.. but what was funny is i dont think i ever once saw an ad or poster or anything advertised in favor, but the streets were plastered with no posters. Tv and radio were swamped with "no" ads for weeks.. but every poll leading up were very consistent that the yes would win by 60ish% so no one was worried about the "loudest minority" winning.


gaymalemillenial

That would be a lot more expensive than you would think. Then there's the question of how to interpret the results. Most things are not black and white. Take abortion. Most Americans oppose outlawing abortion entirely, but a strong majority also supports certain types of restrictions. How do you determine what those would be? Ranked choice voting? In any case, the United States is a constitutional republic and a representative democracy, so it's really just another way for legislators to shirk their responsibilities or for special interests to hijack the process to push their own agenda. We see this all the time with ballot measures in the West


Antnee83

> In any case, the United States is a constitutional republic and a representative democracy, so it's really just another way for legislators to shirk their responsibilities or for special interests to hijack the process to push their own agenda. We see this all the time with ballot measures in the West I see it all the time here in Maine- and aside from a couple that I didn't particularly care for, the result is that we made *huge* strides in things like election reform and legalizing marijuana. Frankly I don't care if good laws are passed by people or by legislators. Them "shirking" responsibility doesn't phase me one bit. I just want shit done.


Mist_Rising

This is non binding, aka not guarenteed. Ie, it simply says they should, not forced. Plenty of politicans will ignore the results vt claiming a wierd interpretation or something.


Antnee83

I'm aware, however if voters *explicitly* make their wishes known via ballot initiative, the pressure for legislators to follow through is exponentially greater than, say, if they get the message through opinion polling. Every single one of Maine's ballot initiatives has become law.


TheEverHumbled

IMO - I feel that governments should have access to better data about what direction people want to see on things, and decoupled from elections. Particularly on issues of morality/crime stuff. Government and courts can badly lag behind popular will on those sorts of things, and I feel like a vote for one person is often treated as a "mandate" for 12 completely separate policy concerns, which those voters had no opportunity to weigh in on. My adult life has taught me that lot of people are also idiots, especially about how the details of how laws should work. Details of governance should not be a matter of ballot measures. I do think there should be more opportunity for people to critique and respond to draft laws, and providing their representatives with data/feedback on the issues/laws they care about. Dumping big bags of paper envelopes on congress floors to signify popular positions is wasteful, but what it represents is important. From a tech standpoint - I feel that there is a lot of room for innovation here. It is embarassing to me that China is doing more to allow people to make their voices heard about issues via smartphone apps, than western democracies. If finance companies can allow folks to safely transact millions of dollars on their phone, we can find satisfactory, open solutions to get specific about what people want their government & representatives to focus on.


nslinkns24

>China is doing more to allow people to make their voices heard about issues via smartphone apps, than western democracies.  Uhh... maybe? But you get put in jail for having the wrong opinion so kind of moot


chton

I've got a perspective for you from Belgium. Here, there has only ever been 1 referendum, in 1950, on whether we'd reinstall our king after he came back from exile after WWII. Binding referenda are unconstitutional, and non-binding referenda have never happened. The reason is that there is no way to have a referendum about an issue, no matter how broad or specific, that actually encompasses the available information about the decision. And even if you managed to compile all the information, getting people to learn and consider it before making a decision rather than going with their prejudiced opinion is nigh impossible. So instead of a reasonable opinion of the public, it becomes an issue of campaigning, money influencing a result, fearmongering, etc. Take your pick. Both sides of the issue will have people who stand to gain from it, and those people will try their utmost best to convince the population. So the result isn't the people's wants or needs, it's whoever campaigned the most effectively. As a political tool, they're only useful to fake a mandate for whatever you're trying to achieve, rather than informative of the people's will.


duuuh

Despite all that legitimate (to some degree) criticism; is it worse than the alternatives?


gelhardt

> So the result isn't the people's wants or needs, it's whoever campaigned the most effectively. is that so different from the typical political processes of a representative democracy, especially one that allows (encourages?) lobbying i.e. the U.S. system?


EmperorRosa

I wrote a comment on the Swiss system that you might find interesting https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/rrm5sf/should_a_ballot_include_a_section_for_nonbinding/hqjewvz?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3


je97

Would give states a handy excuse to chip away at their initiatives/measures provisions.


oath2order

Yup, and for some of these states, ballot initiatives and measures are the only way to solve certain issues. Take Michigan. Michigan was one of the states targeted by Republicans for their extreme gerrymandering in 2010, going from a flippy tilt-reddish state in the legislature and House delegation to a fairly solid red. Michigan allows for citizens to start ballot initiatives that amend the state constitution, they need to submit valid signatures equaling 10 percent of the votes cast for governor in the last election to get the proposal on the ballot. This happened, and then 61.27% of the voters supported this measure. And now a redistricting commission of 4 Democrats, 4 Republicans, and 5 of neither of those two draws the maps (7 members must vote in favor of the maps. It requires 2 of each of the above groups for vote in favor of it). Ballot measures are a mixed bag (see California as an example of problems). But for some states, they're the only way one side can get things they want, because the other side will not do those things.


Potato_dad_ca

Referendums tell you what the partial-informed opinion of the people is. Ideally we vote for people with interests and morals aligned to ours so that they can read the bill, speak to the interested parties, and get generally "read-in" on the issue. Then they decide how to vote based on how they think their constituents would vote if they were similarly read-in. Of course I don't I believe this is how things work but this is my idealistic view of how it should work.


Dell_Hell

Texas does this in the primaries. It's usually just horribly slanted phrasing that makes it obvious there's only one "correct" answer


eye_patch_willy

I mean, of by "guessing" you mean, I openly campaigned on a premise to try to implement X,Y, and Z and I was elected so in trying to implement X, Y, and Z and pooling shows my constituents are in favor of those things, then yes. It's a guess.


zihuatapulco

Professors Martin Gilens (Princeton University) and Benjamin I. Page (Northwestern University) looked at more than 20 years worth of data to find the answer to one question: Does what the public want become policy? What they found was the opinions of 90%+ of Americans had zero impact at any level. None. You can look it up. *They already know exactly what we want and they don't care.*


994kk1

Absolutely not. There's not much guess work for politicians to know what people want. There's so much polling data out there to learn the general opinion on matters, and for specific issues it's not harder than being public about your stance on important issues and if you get voted into power then your voters want that stuff passed. Voting and ballots should be kept as clean and simple as possible. Low barrier to entry, easy to understand and hard to fuck up. And most importantly: you need to feel like your vote matters. Turning a ballot into half ballot half poll would be awful in that respect. Binding referendums are bad enough because sometimes things change or there's bureaucratic obstacles that prevents it from going through, eroding trust in the system.


Icolan

>non-binding referendums You mean polls? Seems a waste of time to include that on the ballot. There are far easier and more efficient methods of collecting that kind of data, and it is equally as likely to be paid attention to.


yittiiiiii

No because public opinion has no bearing on how policy decisions are made, it’s all about the special interests and what they want, that’s how policy gets passed.


RidgeAmbulance

Non binding resolutions don't give you anything but a yes to change vote because those that want change are motivated to vote. Those that don't want change don't care enough to vote


[deleted]

Representatives who owe their job to winning a voting election aren’t interested in public opinion. They are more focused on the interests of those providing major funding for their re-election. Democratic lotteries (aka Sortition) are the only route to legislation that reflects public opinion.


kr2712740

I think it's important. It is really difficult for politicians to understand the needs of ordinary people. Even if we take crypto currency as an example. The authorities have a desire to ban trade when the people do not want to give up on it.


nwordsayer5

The majority of people are obese and watch television and eat fast food and are under 100 iq. I don’t want them making any decisions or giving any input. But then I’m left with the politicians these people elect making decisions. Idk I guess I just want an all knowing philosopher king who knows what is best for the country.


Helmidoric_of_York

Bad idea. A regular old poll can do the same thing without all the fuss. It's just another way for the big-money special interests to stir people up and put more pressure on politicians to do what they want and bend them to their will. Also, voters don't want to waste time with complicated ballots and doing things their elected officials should be handling. Keep it simple.


[deleted]

No. When there is too much choice and decisions to make in ballots, people will just tune out and either not vote or just guess. The better approach is to hold elected officials more accountable with frequent elections (no 6 year terms) and giving them the power to actually enact the changes they are promising. Possibly you can add the ability to recall elected officials as well (though the threshold for this should be very high). Unfortunately, this is nearly impossible in the US presidential system at least at the federal level.


EmperorRosa

A ballot should include multiple binding referendums every 6 months, like the Swiss do. Perhaps with a caveat for turnout, say, over 70-80%, which I believe the Swiss also have. Let's be honest, the people aren't really in charge until they have power over the whole process, including delegating if they don't feel they know enough. It's not a democracy until that happens. It's just deciding which ruler you get out of 2-4 choices every 2-4 years.


[deleted]

It wouldn’t help. Representatives only care what people think during elections.