I do not agree with this the concept of initiative and referenda because we have, by our Constitution, a representative form of government. Our republic is a type of democracy in which individual voters go to the polls to elect representatives to decide issues. The representatives, whether on the national, state, or local level, should be given the power of the people. These elected officials must listen to all sides of the argument and make their informed decisions for their constituencies. An informed decision is not necessarily the most popular or the trend. If the decisions are made by majority vote on an initiative, there is not the assurance that all sides have been considered, or that all constituencies have been heard. The continuity of programs is not preserved. Government risks becoming an agent of whim or popularity. The Founding Fathers assured that the general population, many of whom lacked education or a national view, did not make decisions for all of us. Some might argue that this was rather the function of time and communication. Representatives would have to meet to discuss issues face to face. There was not the technology that exists today, but somehow, I don’t think Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson would want us to “phone in our vote.” There needs to be debate; there needs to be compromise; there needs to be face to face discussion; there needs to be careful deliberation of consequences. Government is often not an up or down vote. It is individuals selecting trusted representatives to speak and vote for them. Individual voters will often vote only in their own, or perceived own, best interest in the moment. A prime example is California’s decision not to raise taxes to alleviate the budget deficit. Now California is facing bankruptcy. There still remains a large segment of the population who remain ignorant about politics and the function of the government. Perhaps in 1789 it was a lack of opportunity in an agrarian society; now it is not a lack of exposure to issue, but interest. Uninformed voting block should not control an issue. There is still control of government by voters. Every two years, four years and six years, the electorate chooses Congress, the President and Senate, respectfully. There is time for change, but there is also time to see the effects of the decisions of the elected officials.
I agree that the use of initiative should be abolished in California, Colorado, and other states. I believe that a representative democracy is the most efficient type of democracy for our nation. I completely agree with Sunny about this topic. The Founding Fathers believed that this type of democracy would be best for the nation because many citizens were uneducated and could not be trusted to make a decision that would truly be the best decision. I believe that this continues to be true today. Though we pride ourselves in being a highly educated nation, many citizens are ignorant to the complexity of most political issues.
Omeed's comment about California's budget crisis is an excellent example of how the popular choice is not always the best choice. Many citizens have very biased opinions and often base their decisions on personal interest. Many fail to look at the issue from all sides and end up making decisions that hurt the economy and ultimately hurt themselves. Through legislature, an issue can be examined from all angles and all consequences can be considered. The resulting decision is an informed decision based upon careful consideration of the facts.
The popular decision is not always the best decision when regarding moral issues either. Many people gain a sense of morals from the way they were raised or by their religious beliefs, but not everyone believes the same thing or follows the same religion. There are basic morals which are highly undisputed and accepted by most, having less to do with religion or upbringing, and more to do with humanity. Most basic political issues regarding morals are decided upon using these basics morals, but other issues are more complex. Opinions about these more complex issues are often based on religious beliefs or a chosen life style. One of the rights belonging to United States citizens is freedom of religion, and therefor everyone should not be forced to abide by the guidelines of a religion because the majority of people follow that religion or a religion with similar beliefs. Political issues based on morals should be considered from a rational and logical standpoint, rather than basing a decision upon personal beliefs, because not everyone shares the same beliefs.
Citizens should take part in government by voting for a representative who will make the best choices on their behalf and legislature should be trusted to make the best decision for the nation.
I agree with the concept of initiative and referenda. Abraham Lincoln stated in his Gettysbury Address that "...The government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." This statement clearly says that the government of the United States shall always be one of the people made by the people. The concept of initiative and referenda gives the people a chance to share their opinions and thoughts with their government leaders and possibly even get some of their ideas passed into government laws. Though I do agree with Sunny's comment that the citizens vote for representatives to lead the country, not all of those representatives' ideas would agree with those of the people. The people of this fair country should be able to share their thoughts with their government at some points, while at others times their representatives would share their ideas. Between these two bodies, the government would continue as a stronger force in creating a better country.
There are many positives and negatives to the concept of initiatives and referenda. The concept is flawed for several reasons. The first reason is that citizens are ignorant; many citizens will vote to pass a piece of legislature without considering the consequences or whether or not its worth while. There is also the fact that just because something is popular does not mean that it is the right thing to do. An idea may seem great to others but effect the majority of the country in a negative way. In addition to that, Americans do not have an equal say in government. The citizens with the most money and power have the best chances to get their initiative passed. In spite of these facts, I believe that the government should not abolish the initiative and referenda. Because America is a nation focused on what the people want, the people should have a direct say in government. It is the duty of the government to listen to what the people want and then make an educated decision about what is best for the nation. Every citizen should have a chance to be heard though. It has also been proven that initiatives have a positive effect on elections. Many voters who may have other wise stayed uninvolved go to the polls because they believe their voice will actually be heard. Voters have more of a voice with the initiative therefore they want to be involved and receive other peoples support on their issues. Initiatives and referenda not only influence the number of voters during elections but the results of the elections. It is believed that George W. Bush may not have won Ohio in the 2004 election, which guaranteed him the win, had it not been for the gay marriage initiative on the ballot. Because of all of this I say that the 27 states who currently post political issues on their ballots should continue to do so, and other states should explore the possibility of doing the same. It is to be expected that the government knows better than to propose or pass any piece of legislature that may be harmful to the nation.
I agree with the majority of our class and feel that the use of initiatives should not be abolished. Colorado, California, Oregon, and the 33 other states, in my opinion, are doing the right thing by giving the people of their state a right to voice their own opinion on individual state matters. I believe that all states should adapt this idea in order to resolve statewide issues or concerns. I do not see the crime in putting a question on the ballot, which does not directly make your choice for president. Yes, initiatives may favor one candidate or the other, such as thee 2004 Ohio incident, but there is more than one problem that candidates are faced with and more than one problem that voters choose their opinion for president on.
Having initiatives on ballots gives the voter something to really get excited about. They are given a chance to voice their opinion on something that will not affect the entire country, such as the presidential election would, but rather their state, which something that is more specific to their daily lives and routines. People jump at the idea to have a say because they feel that it actually means something and this is evident as "Ballot Measures Preview 2008" states that, "states with initiatives on the ballot see turnout that's about three to five points higher than states without initiatives on the ballot." The more people that go to the polls on Election Day the better and if initiatives are the reason for people to show up then there is no reason that all of the remaining states should follow the lead of states with initiatives.
People know what they want and should have a chance to say so. Initiatives give people this option and whether their opinion is based on instinct or research they should be able to say so. It is not always the person’s fault if they do not have the educational resources to learn more on a topic and should not be faulted for that. Everyone should have an equal say and initiatives on ballots gives everyone this chance, a chance to say what they believe in.
I disagree with the fact that in 27 out of our 50 states citezens are allowed to alter and change the law by popular vote. Initiative and referenda ruins the whole point of our goverment. Citizens vote the representative into office to whom they most agree with and think woudl dothe best job for the country. These representatives are much more educated, and can give a lot more thought and time into the laws, and descisions being made. Initiative and referenda also leaves the minority groups, and the citizens with less money behind, and with basically no say. Initiative's also can ruin state's budgets because the goverment has no say in them, but yet the ystill are suppose to keep taxes low. Since California citizens voted not to raise taxes to help with with finiaces they are nowalmsot bankrupt. Elected representatives are looking for the best for the whole group citizens are jsut looking for the best of them. Yes there are some positive Inititives passed but in the situation for every positive there is a negative one, and America can not handle that.
The concept of initiative is appealing to the American people. Why remove the people's opportunity to suggest and vote on policies without interference from state government. The initiative has many benefits such as: getting people more involved, increase in voter turnout, and giving people more say. Unfortunately the negatives outweigh the positives. People can be ignorant and suggest and idea they feel strongly about when they know it may not be beneficial to the state. Also presidential nominees may use initiatives to influences voters. Policies may lead to mismanagement of funds, and eventually financial difficulty for the state.
This is why I believe initiative should be abolished. Lets say for example a group of people that are for same sex marriage go out and rally the people to vote for this issue. The people against same sex marriage get angry because they do not approve with the decision so they look for the government to do something. Well now because of the initiative the government is stuck and cannot do anything to calm the angry citizens. The initiative poses many problems for the government. If there is an issue other than same sex marriage involving money for example, the government will get stuck because they cannot overturn the peoples vote. The government not being able to do anything, can lead to the state going bankrupt as is the case in California.
Therefore as good as the idea of initiative sounds the consequences are just to harmful to the state. It would be great to give the citizens of the United states more say but I do not believe that they have to ability to make propositions and suggestions that would be beneficial. Americans should get more involved by learning about the people who they vote for so that they have the right people in position to make the best decisions.
I do not believe that the initiative and referendum process has a place in today's government. Initiatives are additions to a state’s ballot which enable people to vote directly on certain issues. They are used in approximately half of the states. However, while direct democracy may have worked for Athens, the US is primarily a representative democracy. Representative democracy adapts democracy for use with a large population, ensuring that the people’s opinion is heard while not compromising on the stability and fairness of the government and therefore, it should not be mixed with direct democracy. As Omeed previously quoted, Thomas Jefferson may indeed have believed that “governments are instituted among men”. However, Jefferson was essentially a thinker and an idealist. Unlike his more practical rival, Alexander Hamilton, Jefferson believed in a utopian democracy, governed directly by the people. Jefferson, however, for all his faith in the farmers and middle-class people, was not one of them. If he had been, perhaps he would have realized that these people, then and now, do not have the time to consider complicated political processes and possible consequences. While the statement “the masses are asses” (generally credited to Hamilton) may not be strictly true, it can hardly be argued that the average American does not and cannot invest his/her precious time in studying politics and issues in great depth. And the deciding of all issues, even minor, does require research. In 1996 in Oregon, in order to decide 16 initiatives, voters were given a 248 page document with arguements for and against each initiative, so that they could make the most informed decision. How many people have the time to incorporate that sort of study into their daily lives? Also, the people are easily swayed by powerful corporations and almost anyone with enough money to launch an extensive campaign. In California alone, nearly $100 million is spent annually in initiative campaigns... In 1990, California’s “Big Green” Initiative, an effort to control global warming, was over-thrown after big corporations launched a campaign against it to the tune of $16.5 million. Another often stated point is that what is popular is not necessarily always most beneficial to the people or the government. Taxes are, of course, nearly always unpopular. However, they are necessary to provide funding for essentials such as public education, roads, etc. Also, while it is very well to dismiss pressing issues such as gay rights and abortion as more minor issues that do not affect either the infrastructure of the government or the majority at large, they cannot be put to vote as initiatives. Historical evidence proves that initiatives are often a way to suppress the minorities by the decision of the majority. A clear example was provided in the early 1960s, before the passage of the civil rights acts, when a white majority in the southern states attempted to prevent the black minority from voting through the use of initiatives.
I agree with my classmates regarding the use of initiatives during a political election. I believe that initiatives should be abolished in California, Colorado and other states because there are too many challenges/ problems that can arise:
As mentioned, popular opinion should not always be a basis for passing a policy. For example, in California, an initiative on the ballot dealt with drug policy. Although marijuana is not as harmful as other substances, I do not believe that people should have the choice to decide whether or not a drug should be legalized. It is the responsibility of state representatives to determine what is legal, what is right and what is unlawful. Giving the people this much power could be extremely dangerous, not to mention there could be unintended consequences.
Contrary to popular belief that initiatives were created to give people an equal voice in government, I believe that referendums/ initiatives are used primarily as a political tool to gain support for a certain candidate. In the 2004 election, Bush won the state of Ohio; many of my classmates have argued that the reason for his victory was because of the same - sex marriage initiative. Sure, this initiative brought more voters to the polls, however I believe that this initiative was placed on the ballot to help secure the win for Bush...this initiative brought more republican voters to polls.
Although many people are educated, they are unaware of political issues. There are many Americans who go to the polls who know nothing about health care, education, abortion, etc. It is not that people are uneducated, it is that they are uniformed. Therefore, they should not be given the power to decide what laws or policies should be passed.
Of course, our political system was created " of the people, by the people and for the people," yet the initiatives give Americans almost too much power. As mentioned, we elect representatives and other government officials to voice our opinions and ideas. I believe that people should have a voice (as the laws and policies will affect them). Yet, I don't believe that initiatives are the best way to go about giving Americans a voice and therefore should be abolished.
9 comments:
I do not agree with this the concept of initiative and referenda because we have, by our Constitution, a representative form of government. Our republic is a type of democracy in which individual voters go to the polls to elect representatives to decide issues. The representatives, whether on the national, state, or local level, should be given the power of the people. These elected officials must listen to all sides of the argument and make their informed decisions for their constituencies. An informed decision is not necessarily the most popular or the trend. If the decisions are made by majority vote on an initiative, there is not the assurance that all sides have been considered, or that all constituencies have been heard. The continuity of programs is not preserved. Government risks becoming an agent of whim or popularity. The Founding Fathers assured that the general population, many of whom lacked education or a national view, did not make decisions for all of us. Some might argue that this was rather the function of time and communication. Representatives would have to meet to discuss issues face to face. There was not the technology that exists today, but somehow, I don’t think Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson would want us to “phone in our vote.” There needs to be debate; there needs to be compromise; there needs to be face to face discussion; there needs to be careful deliberation of consequences. Government is often not an up or down vote. It is individuals selecting trusted representatives to speak and vote for them. Individual voters will often vote only in their own, or perceived own, best interest in the moment. A prime example is California’s decision not to raise taxes to alleviate the budget deficit. Now California is facing bankruptcy. There still remains a large segment of the population who remain ignorant about politics and the function of the government. Perhaps in 1789 it was a lack of opportunity in an agrarian society; now it is not a lack of exposure to issue, but interest. Uninformed voting block should not control an issue. There is still control of government by voters. Every two years, four years and six years, the electorate chooses Congress, the President and Senate, respectfully. There is time for change, but there is also time to see the effects of the decisions of the elected officials.
I agree that the use of initiative should be abolished in California, Colorado, and other states. I believe that a representative democracy is the most efficient type of democracy for our nation. I completely agree with Sunny about this topic. The Founding Fathers believed that this type of democracy would be best for the nation because many citizens were uneducated and could not be trusted to make a decision that would truly be the best decision. I believe that this continues to be true today. Though we pride ourselves in being a highly educated nation, many citizens are ignorant to the complexity of most political issues.
Omeed's comment about California's budget crisis is an excellent example of how the popular choice is not always the best choice. Many citizens have very biased opinions and often base their decisions on personal interest. Many fail to look at the issue from all sides and end up making decisions that hurt the economy and ultimately hurt themselves. Through legislature, an issue can be examined from all angles and all consequences can be considered. The resulting decision is an informed decision based upon careful consideration of the facts.
The popular decision is not always the best decision when regarding moral issues either. Many people gain a sense of morals from the way they were raised or by their religious beliefs, but not everyone believes the same thing or follows the same religion. There are basic morals which are highly undisputed and accepted by most, having less to do with religion or upbringing, and more to do with humanity. Most basic political issues regarding morals are decided upon using these basics morals, but other issues are more complex. Opinions about these more complex issues are often based on religious beliefs or a chosen life style. One of the rights belonging to United States citizens is freedom of religion, and therefor everyone should not be forced to abide by the guidelines of a religion because the majority of people follow that religion or a religion with similar beliefs. Political issues based on morals should be considered from a rational and logical standpoint, rather than basing a decision upon personal beliefs, because not everyone shares the same beliefs.
Citizens should take part in government by voting for a representative who will make the best choices on their behalf and legislature should be trusted to make the best decision for the nation.
I agree with the concept of initiative and referenda. Abraham Lincoln stated in his Gettysbury Address that "...The government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." This statement clearly says that the government of the United States shall always be one of the people made by the people. The concept of initiative and referenda gives the people a chance to share their opinions and thoughts with their government leaders and possibly even get some of their ideas passed into government laws. Though I do agree with Sunny's comment that the citizens vote for representatives to lead the country, not all of those representatives' ideas would agree with those of the people. The people of this fair country should be able to share their thoughts with their government at some points, while at others times their representatives would share their ideas. Between these two bodies, the government would continue as a stronger force in creating a better country.
There are many positives and negatives to the concept of initiatives and referenda. The concept is flawed for several reasons. The first reason is that citizens are ignorant; many citizens will vote to pass a piece of legislature without considering the consequences or whether or not its worth while. There is also the fact that just because something is popular does not mean that it is the right thing to do. An idea may seem great to others but effect the majority of the country in a negative way. In addition to that, Americans do not have an equal say in government. The citizens with the most money and power have the best chances to get their initiative passed.
In spite of these facts, I believe that the government should not abolish the initiative and referenda. Because America is a nation focused on what the people want, the people should have a direct say in government. It is the duty of the government to listen to what the people want and then make an educated decision about what is best for the nation. Every citizen should have a chance to be heard though.
It has also been proven that initiatives have a positive effect on elections. Many voters who may have other wise stayed uninvolved go to the polls because they believe their voice will actually be heard. Voters have more of a voice with the initiative therefore they want to be involved and receive other peoples support on their issues.
Initiatives and referenda not only influence the number of voters during elections but the results of the elections. It is believed that George W. Bush may not have won Ohio in the 2004 election, which guaranteed him the win, had it not been for the gay marriage initiative on the ballot.
Because of all of this I say that the 27 states who currently post political issues on their ballots should continue to do so, and other states should explore the possibility of doing the same. It is to be expected that the government knows better than to propose or pass any piece of legislature that may be harmful to the nation.
I agree with the majority of our class and feel that the use of initiatives should not be abolished. Colorado, California, Oregon, and the 33 other states, in my opinion, are doing the right thing by giving the people of their state a right to voice their own opinion on individual state matters. I believe that all states should adapt this idea in order to resolve statewide issues or concerns. I do not see the crime in putting a question on the ballot, which does not directly make your choice for president. Yes, initiatives may favor one candidate or the other, such as thee 2004 Ohio incident, but there is more than one problem that candidates are faced with and more than one problem that voters choose their opinion for president on.
Having initiatives on ballots gives the voter something to really get excited about. They are given a chance to voice their opinion on something that will not affect the entire country, such as the presidential election would, but rather their state, which something that is more specific to their daily lives and routines. People jump at the idea to have a say because they feel that it actually means something and this is evident as "Ballot Measures Preview 2008" states that, "states with initiatives on the ballot see turnout that's about three to five points higher than states without initiatives on the ballot." The more people that go to the polls on Election Day the better and if initiatives are the reason for people to show up then there is no reason that all of the remaining states should follow the lead of states with initiatives.
People know what they want and should have a chance to say so. Initiatives give people this option and whether their opinion is based on instinct or research they should be able to say so. It is not always the person’s fault if they do not have the educational resources to learn more on a topic and should not be faulted for that. Everyone should have an equal say and initiatives on ballots gives everyone this chance, a chance to say what they believe in.
I disagree with the fact that in 27 out of our 50 states citezens are allowed to alter and change the law by popular vote. Initiative and referenda ruins the whole point of our goverment. Citizens vote the representative into office to whom they most agree with and think woudl dothe best job for the country. These representatives are much more educated, and can give a lot more thought and time into the laws, and descisions being made. Initiative and referenda also leaves the minority groups, and the citizens with less money behind, and with basically no say. Initiative's also can ruin state's budgets because the goverment has no say in them, but yet the ystill are suppose to keep taxes low. Since California citizens voted not to raise taxes to help with with finiaces they are nowalmsot bankrupt. Elected representatives are looking for the best for the whole group citizens are jsut looking for the best of them. Yes there are some positive Inititives passed but in the situation for every positive there is a negative one, and America can not handle that.
The concept of initiative is appealing to the American people. Why remove the people's opportunity to suggest and vote on policies without interference from state government. The initiative has many benefits such as: getting people more involved, increase in voter turnout, and giving people more say. Unfortunately the negatives outweigh the positives. People can be ignorant and suggest and idea they feel strongly about when they know it may not be beneficial to the state. Also presidential nominees may use initiatives to influences voters. Policies may lead to mismanagement of funds, and eventually financial difficulty for the state.
This is why I believe initiative should be abolished. Lets say for example a group of people that are for same sex marriage go out and rally the people to vote for this issue. The people against same sex marriage get angry because they do not approve with the decision so they look for the government to do something. Well now because of the initiative the government is stuck and cannot do anything to calm the angry citizens. The initiative poses many problems for the government. If there is an issue other than same sex marriage involving money for example, the government will get stuck because they cannot overturn the peoples vote. The government not being able to do anything, can lead to the state going bankrupt as is the case in California.
Therefore as good as the idea of initiative sounds the consequences are just to harmful to the state. It would be great to give the citizens of the United states more say but I do not believe that they have to ability to make propositions and suggestions that would be beneficial. Americans should get more involved by learning about the people who they vote for so that they have the right people in position to make the best decisions.
I do not believe that the initiative and referendum process has a place in today's government. Initiatives are additions to a state’s ballot which enable people to vote directly on certain issues. They are used in approximately half of the states. However, while direct democracy may have worked for Athens, the US is primarily a representative democracy. Representative democracy adapts democracy for use with a large population, ensuring that the people’s opinion is heard while not compromising on the stability and fairness of the government and therefore, it should not be mixed with direct democracy.
As Omeed previously quoted, Thomas Jefferson may indeed have believed that “governments are instituted among men”. However, Jefferson was essentially a thinker and an idealist. Unlike his more practical rival, Alexander Hamilton, Jefferson believed in a utopian democracy, governed directly by the people. Jefferson, however, for all his faith in the farmers and middle-class people, was not one of them. If he had been, perhaps he would have realized that these people, then and now, do not have the time to consider complicated political processes and possible consequences.
While the statement “the masses are asses” (generally credited to Hamilton) may not be strictly true, it can hardly be argued that the average American does not and cannot invest his/her precious time in studying politics and issues in great depth. And the deciding of all issues, even minor, does require research. In 1996 in Oregon, in order to decide 16 initiatives, voters were given a 248 page document with arguements for and against each initiative, so that they could make the most informed decision. How many people have the time to incorporate that sort of study into their daily lives?
Also, the people are easily swayed by powerful corporations and almost anyone with enough money to launch an extensive campaign. In California alone, nearly $100 million is spent annually in initiative campaigns... In 1990, California’s “Big Green” Initiative, an effort to control global warming, was over-thrown after big corporations launched a campaign against it to the tune of $16.5 million.
Another often stated point is that what is popular is not necessarily always most beneficial to the people or the government. Taxes are, of course, nearly always unpopular. However, they are necessary to provide funding for essentials such as public education, roads, etc.
Also, while it is very well to dismiss pressing issues such as gay rights and abortion as more minor issues that do not affect either the infrastructure of the government or the majority at large, they cannot be put to vote as initiatives. Historical evidence proves that initiatives are often a way to suppress the minorities by the decision of the majority. A clear example was provided in the early 1960s, before the passage of the civil rights acts, when a white majority in the southern states attempted to prevent the black minority from voting through the use of initiatives.
I agree with my classmates regarding the use of initiatives during a political election. I believe that initiatives should be abolished in California, Colorado and other states because there are too many challenges/ problems that can arise:
As mentioned, popular opinion should not always be a basis for passing a policy. For example, in California, an initiative on the ballot dealt with drug policy. Although marijuana is not as harmful as other substances, I do not believe that people should have the choice to decide whether or not a drug should be legalized. It is the responsibility of state representatives to determine what is legal, what is right and what is unlawful. Giving the people this much power could be extremely dangerous, not to mention there could be unintended consequences.
Contrary to popular belief that initiatives were created to give people an equal voice in government, I believe that referendums/ initiatives are used primarily as a political tool to gain support for a certain candidate. In the 2004 election, Bush won the state of Ohio; many of my classmates have argued that the reason for his victory was because of the same - sex marriage initiative. Sure, this initiative brought more voters to the polls, however I believe that this initiative was placed on the ballot to help secure the win for Bush...this initiative brought more republican voters to polls.
Although many people are educated, they are unaware of political issues. There are many Americans who go to the polls who know nothing about health care, education, abortion, etc. It is not that people are uneducated, it is that they are uniformed. Therefore, they should not be given the power to decide what laws or policies should be passed.
Of course, our political system was created " of the people, by the people and for the people," yet the initiatives give Americans almost too much power. As mentioned, we elect representatives and other government officials to voice our opinions and ideas. I believe that people should have a voice (as the laws and policies will affect them). Yet, I don't believe that initiatives are the best way to go about giving Americans a voice and therefore should be abolished.
Post a Comment