mhendo:
I agree. In some elections, there are propositions that directly oppose one another, but it’s not always clear from the language that this is the case unless you read very closely.
I find that the Legislative Analyst’s summaries of the propositions are generally very well done, and i read them quite closely in arriving at my position. Of course, not being a US citizen yet, my position isn’t actually relevant to the outcome.
The whole initiative process seems, at first glance, like an admirable exercise of democracy, with the people taking control of the political process. When it was passed in 1911, during Progressive-era concern about political corruption, it did indeed fulfill some of that promise. But it’s become a bloated and distorted system that is no less subject to “special interest” pressures than the legislature itself, and the dramatic increase in the state’s population (with concomitant increase in the required number of signatures) means that the only people who can get an initiative on the ballot are those with millions of dollars to pay for signature-gathering.
I understand why people want to wrest control of political issues away from politicians, but the initiative system has, in many ways, made the system less able to respond to changing circumstances, and has hamstrung the legislature in ways that actually make it less effective. Politicians aren’t perfect, but we elect them to govern, and the initiative process, as currently implemented, makes that far more difficult. Californians complain about Sacramento being inept and useless, but if that’s the case, the current system is at least partly to blame.
The ballot initiative, like the filibuster, is a great idea. Great, that is, when used sparingly and with careful deliberation beforehand. Instead, it’s more a case of “there outta be a law!”.