In the article ‘Is the U.S. a democracy or a republic? What’s the difference?’ it was pointed out that direct involvment of the people in the government on a day-to-day basis is impractical. This is true. However, one should mention the example of Switzerland. Any swiss citizen who wants to introduce a new law or change an existing one, can do so by taking the initiative to organize a referendum. In order to set up an official referendum, the organising comittee needs to gather a certain amount of votes in a certain time. Then a date is defined for that referendum by the government. If 50% or more vote ‘yes’ then the law is established. This is an example of direct involvement of people in the government. The participation of voters varies from initiative to initiative but by no means are swiss people ‘sick’ of too much voting. They are actually proud of this system.
Citizens can do that in most of the US, too. The exact numbers needed, and the scope of what a referendum can do, vary from state to state, but I’ve never heard of a state that didn’t have such a mechanism at all.
There is no initiative or referendum process in state government at all. There have been 3 attempts to add this to the state constitution (latest in 1980), but they all failed to pass the voters.
I don’t believe there is any way to do so in New York, at least I’ve never heard anybody even raise the possibility of one. Given that we famously have The Most Dysfunctional Legislature in the Nation™ people here would leap and claw at the slightest shred of such a possibility.
Of course, there is not even the tiniest similarity between referendums and day-to-day governing. It is an utterly false comparison.
New York has the most dysfunctional legislature. Trademarked, no less. This Californian stands (okay, sits) corrected. Anyhow, if you do need any propositions on the ballot, let us know, and we’ll go ahead and put them on our ballot.
In practice here in the USA, referendums are hardly ‘direct involvement of the people’.
Referendums are generally the work of a specific, dedicated group, usually funded by a specific special interest (often corporate).
In California, where they have dozens of referendums every election, there are firms that specialize in the work needed to pass a referendum. They will collect the signatures needed to get it on the ballot for you (there is even a standard price per signature). There are PR firms that will form a fake grassroots (‘astroturf’) organization, find (& pay) prominent people to be spokespersons, produce press releases, organize rallies, produce advertising, etc. All a standard task, with records of accomplishment for other referendums.
Such referendums are far different from direct actions of the citizens!
Political scientists who study these things have anointed New York as number one. As New Yorkers are wont to do, we merely duck our heads and scruff our toes in demure acknowledgment of yet another example of our superiority. We wouldn’t rub it in your faces or anything.
“In an exhaustive 56 page study, The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University’s School of Law illustrated in depressing detail how truly F-ed up our State’s Senate and Assembly have become.”
(my bolding)
So New Yorkers anointed themselves the greatest and best in yet another category. Color me surprised.
I thought we were writing in English, not Latin. When you start using penes, then we can talk. How you will form the plural of agenda I cannot imagine.
Well, you describe the mechanisms and industry in place to achieve a referendum, but the basis is still the ability of citizens to initiate the process. At least in California there is no inherent barrier to a citizen initiated referendum.
We’re talking about the Legislature of Georgia, so there’s no thinking involved.
And smiling bandit, I’ve long felt the way to resolve this water war was for the Guv to call out the National Guard, invade Alabama, annex Florida and lease it to the Canadians. Boom! Water woes and budget crisis solved in one fell swoop!
We are writing in English. Which is why insisting upon using a Latin pluralising ending for what is now an accepted English word is arguably silly. Thus, I said use “referendums”, not “referenda.”
The plural of agenda is agendas. Only someone really silly would insist upon calling them agendae.
And yes, burst would be correct. The grammatical corallary to Gaudere’s Principle manages to bite me.
Wouldn’t our hypothetical silly person be likelier to insist that “agenda” is the plural form, and that one should probably refer to “the agendum of the meeting”?
Anyhow, if you do need any propositions on the ballot, let us know, and we’ll go ahead and put them on our ballot.
