A call for a Constitutional Ammendment for National Ballot Measures

I'm tired of seeing Congress dismiss or water down nearly every good idea. I think the the people should have a way to more directly affect change in our country, without corrupt politicians and lobbyists getting in the way. Most states have a referendum or ballot measure law. Why don't we have one for our country?

A simple ammendment could allow just one ballot measure per year (any more than this and it would get out of hand). Each year the people could vote on the measure and also vote on which proposed measure would be voted on the following year. A process could be laid out by which ballot measures could be placed on the proposal list (getting a certain number of signatures in each state).

Now how's that for democracy? I know there's fear that the teabaggers would take hold of this and make all kinds of crazy laws, but I believe this would in fact show that the teabaggers are actually in the minority on most issues and they would be silenced more than empowered. And "crazy" ideas like perhaps marijuana decriminalization, ending the war, real health care change, would be empowered because these are in fact the views of the majority that just get squashed or watered down when the enter the existing legislation maze.

Is this too radical?

Most of those issues, if you look at current polls... most people favor abortion rights, gay rights, and real health care reform.

Gays have lost every referendum that has come up in the last couple of years.

I wouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. It's not over until the fat lady sings and there's no doubt she's just warming up on the gay rights issue. the bad result in CA may have motivated people for round 2.

It is those that don't that turn out to vote.

As much as I lament some of the results, I think we'd lament any measure put to the American people. The RW will lie about it and outspend us greatly.

just my opinion.

yes there would be a flood of propaganda. but I'd still take it and let the people decide. many good laws have been passed in many states with their referendums.

California does it. The first thing we could vote on is making lobbyist illegal OR term limits for members of congress.

They are constantly saying term limits is voting them out. But it costs a fortune for a person to run for office against an incumbent. So if they had term limits it would make it a lot better for first time congress people to run. AND maybe if they had term limits first the lobbyist wouldn't be able to bribe congress to vote for their interest.

Want term limits? Amend the constitution. That's how its done (see 22nd Amendment for an example)

Want to ban lobbyists? Figure out how to overcome the First Amendment. Sure, one can regulate contributions and certain activities. But barring people from speaking on behalf of others to elected officials (i.e., lobbying)--- overkill.

Then the First Amendment would not be involved.

The Supreme COurt has said that commercial speech has first amendment rights. Its not a statutory issue, its a constitutional one.

Prop 8, for one bad example.

People with money can talk the majority of a population into almost anything. Including very bad, stupid things.

to any demagogue with enough money to buy some add time.

You could also say that walking around town randomly firing a gun isn't bad because every once in a while you might accidentally shoot yourself some dinner.

This would be used by every right wing fanatic to get a favorite right to life, marriage definition, and culture war bill passed.

Limiting to just 1 would be unworkable. How do you decide which one gets on the ballot?

We are a representative Democratic Repulbic. Experiments in pure democracy are interesting but more often disastrous.

...have a vested interest in a common future. We live in a land 300 million strong who are at each others' throats most of the time.

Yeah. Better stick with the republic.

I will concede that there have been some bad results. But I have lived in several states, some which have ballot measures and some that don't. I much prefer those that do.

All those issues that you refer to... right to life, marriage, I think the majority of the country is on the correct side of these issues.

take health care for example. the majority of the people favor a single payer system but it isn't even being discussed. we could have a ballot measure on it and put glenn beck to shame.

the way we could limit it to one, is every year when they're voting on the current ballot, they could also vote on which one will be "the one" next year. there could be a reasonable formula for becoming a proposal to be on the list.

I realize it's not perfect and there would be bad measures. But when it comes down to it, our current system is far less than perfect as well, and even more open to corruption than direct ballots. AS someone stated above, we could get rid of the lobbyists pretty quickly.

It doesn't matter what ideas the majority hold, if the real majority won't get out and vote for them.

Often referendums are titled and described in misleading ways. In California they often run in odd, off year elections when turn out can be under 10%.

One final thought, no one is going to change the Constitution. The hurdles are huge.

about 37 million are uninsured.
about 270 million have some kind of insurance.

You'd have to assume most of the 270 million are somewhat satisfied with that care, they pay every month don't they?
Tell them that their premiums may get more expensive or they may have less access to the care they already have.
Do you really think 60% or more of the insured people will vote on behalf of the uninsured.

"they pay every month don't they"

I'm wondering whether this is for want of a better alternative and not having one.

Virtually ever one I've seen indicates that a majority of the american people favor single payer. Yet it's not even being considered in the legislature. Yes, this is a prime example of what could be accomplished with direct ballot measures.

would be higher voter turn out... especially for highly controversial initiatives.

Once a year would be a logistical and expensive nightmare.

If it were to be done, it would have to be each election cycle (either 2-4 years).

I'm all for it!

Ban guns from the United States of America!

Oregon had one of the first citizen initiative laws in the country, going back to 1907 or so. Terrific idea in theory: When the legislature is unable or unwilling to enact laws that the people want, the ballot is open for citizen legislation. And it worked pretty well for many decades.

But like many good ideas, money began driving the ballot initiative process. There are still one or two truly grassroots measures that hit the ballot every couple of years, but the majority of measures are written by hidden corporate interests with glib-talking front men who demagogue an issue relentlessly. All kinds of tax limitation measures are on the ballot every election cycle, and some fatcat somewhere is hoping that for a relatively modest outlay, he can bamboozle the electorate into handing him the keys to the state treasury.

National ballot measures might be a good idea except for a couple of things: (1) the ability of a select few to control and run the discussion; and (2) the incredible denseness of a significant segment of the population that can be maneuvered into voting against its own interests. While Congress isn't the most efficient body in the whole wide world, and while it's frustrating to see the sausage factory at work, I have a great deal more confidence in the abilities of Congress to listen to and take into account all the different factions of society that have a stake in any legislation, and to at least have the information at hand. Whether they avail themselves of that information or not is problematical. But if they don't, at least you can call a number and say, "You knucklehead! You passed a huge giveaway to a bunch of overrich fat cats!" Who do you call when a bare majority of those who can be bothered to vote do something stupid?

never pass. Would states relinquish their rights to the Federal Government? No Fucking way would it ever pass, and probably not a good idea, either.

Their is a reason we have representative government. If we did what you suggest, we would be leading ourselves into a mob-rule.

No thanks.

We have enough trouble getting people to vote and count the votes for regular elections.

I don't even want to touch national ballot initiatives.

It's a tool for special interests masquerading as "populism", look at Proposition H8.