About this Blog
Direct democracy -- the Switzerland-inspired system of initiatives, referenda and recalls that allows voters to make and repeal laws in 24 states -- is poorly understood. It isn’t even very direct. Direct democracy has become blockbuster democracy: a half-billion-dollar international industry of signature gatherers, consultants, and election lawyers who use ballot measures less as a method of making law and more as a tool of mega-communications to boost some politicians, hurt others, and supplement lobbying campaigns.
Blockbuster democracy is a decentralized business that practices wide-open politics. This blog aims to provide a center of news, analysis and conversation for and about the industry. We will report from blockbuster democracy’s capital -- California -- but we’ll monitor ballot measures from across the country and around the globe.
Your Blogger: Joe Mathews is an
User login
A Good Initiative Reform Idea Gets A Hearing In Oregon
In the United States, ballot initiatives usually appear "naked" on the ballot. That is to say, voters decide yes or no on a particular statute or constitutional amendment, and that's it. There's only one choice.
Most of the rest of the world doesn't do things this way. In Switzerland, where modern direct democracy was invented, voters get more of a choice. They not only can vote yes or no on an initiative, but they also get to pass a judgment on a legislative counter-proposal to each initiative. And they can decide which of the two meausures-- the initiative or the counter-proposal--takes effect in the event that both are approved by voters.
But change may be coming in Oregon. The possibility of a counter-proposal is part of state legislation, now being debated, that would require that initiatives go to the legislature first before they appear on the ballot. If approved, the legislation would give lawmakers the option of approving the initiative, doing nothing and letting the initiative go on the ballot, or offering a counter-proposal.
This is a great idea for a variety of reasons. It gives voters more choice. It gives lawmakers an opportunity to explain to voters how a particular initiative fits -- or doesn't fit -- into existing state plans and budgets. And counter-proposals make for better campaigns. Instead of considering an initiative in a vacuum, voters compare two different measures. The resulting debate is likely to focus more on the details of the measure, and less on the emotions that surround a particular issue.
What are Oregon's real motives?
I see this as a way for the legislature to split any votes to further confuse voters. They understand there will be a certain amount of voters for something and if it is well received then put a competing version on the ballot to strip off votes from something that is well supported. They really want to offer a watered down version of something that is well received so both lose or the watered down version wins so not much got passed. Seriously if they have concerns about an issue it begs the questions wouldn't they have acted on it already? Also since when do politicians especially liberal ones worry about the costs when lately I all have been hearing across the country is raise taxes? Oregon has become so liberal they want to squash dissent. Petitioning grievances is a form of dissent of government. I tread lightly when the government wants to "help us" on our dissent.
You wrote an article about Bill Sizemore and him going to jail. One should ask why does the Oregon Education Association have a whole archive devoted to him?
http://www.oregoned.org/site/apps/nl/newsletter2.asp?c=9dKKKYMDH&b=30754...
Sure he anti-union, but isn't the goal of unions to be non-political? Isnt the goal of OEA to win hearts and minds of Oregonians so they will be victorious or to just outright squash dissent, so there is no questioning of authority? Liberals used to use live by the phrase "Question Authority". When they are in power, I really don't hear it. Now it is "Do you want to be relevant anymore?" You can insert Oregon legislature for OEA (who is really pulling who's strings?) Starting to seem Orwellian to me.
It's Details, Not Motives That Matter
Politicians want control, sure. And I'm sure the motives of the people you mention aren't pure. But I disagree that adding a second measure would merely confuse voters. To the contrary, the experience of other parts of the world with the counter-measure is that you have a more detailed, serious debate about the issue when you're confronted with a choice between two proposals. What that leads to is comparison, not confusion. People look at the two measures (the initiative and the legislative counter-proposal) and the media scrutiny and discussion focuses on the question: what is the difference between these two? That's a debate that produces less confusion than what we have now in California and other American states--where we look at initiatives in isolation, and the debate is about the emotion or the larger issue in the initiative, rather than its details. And the details matter. Joe Mathews Irvine senior fellow, New America Foundation www.newamerica.net/blog/blockbuster-democracy/
Post new comment