I disagree that California, Colorado, and other states that use the initiative should abolish its use. I see the initiative as an effective tool in not only increasing the number of voters, but also as a tool that makes US citizens feel as though they are making contributions to the government. I feel that all too often politicians promise things in their campaigns to increase voter interest and once they are elected they "change their mind on an issue." Initiative allows voters to pass things that they are passionate about without the fear that the elected politician will "change his/her mind." Although I believe in initiative, I can see a few minor problems that may arise. While many of the voters educate themselves about the issues, some voters will vote on what is popular and not on what they believe in. This can cause problems since those voters may want to change the laws that they helped pass with initiative later on. Problems may also be caused by the controversy that surrounds many initiatives. As you will see on the worksheet that Mr. Kersey passed out, the "hot issues" that were the focus of initiatives in 2008 were rather controversial such as: abortion, immigration, drug policy, and anti-affirmative action. While some problems may arise with initiatives, the good outweighs the bad. Initiatives prove to be a sound democratic part of some states governments that helps voters bypass corrupt politicians and make their own decisions.
I agree with Molly in both the points she made. Initiatives should be used because they do increase the number of voter turn out. I agree that initiatives give voters the direct say that most feel they are lacking when electing representatives. Initiatives are a good way to bypass representatives and their personal opinions which may affect the result of their votes. Initiatives are also something that would cause voters to want to become more informed on political issues since they would begin to have more of a direct impact on the outcome. I also agree that there are downsides to initiatives. There will always be uninformed voters casting votes on important issues. However in a situation where the initiative is focused on a popular topic it can be a very productive way of the voters getting a direct result from their votes.
I agree that California, Colorado, and other states that use the initiative and referendum should abolish its use. In theory, it is a good idea to try and give more people more of a say, but in my opinion the negative points of initiatives and referenda outweigh the positives.
While initiatives and referenda do give people more of a say in government, the fact is that many of these voters are ignorant. It has nothing to do with education levels but simply that people are extremely busy and often do not have time to study all the issues thoroughly enough to make a truly informed decision. Including initiatives and referenda on the ballot has been proven to increase voter turnout 3-5%, but it also presents a prime opportunity for politicians to take advantage of the initiatives and try and get more voters from their political party out to vote for them. For example, in the 2004 election, Ohio became a battleground as both presidential candidates attempted to win the votes. Same-sex marriage was put on the ballot as the only issue, and there was an increase in conservative voters allowing Bush to win Ohio. I also think that those 3-5% of voters who are only voting because their particular initiative was put on the ballot are probably not too concerned with the actual candidate part of the voting, which could cause unintendid consequences.
Another major negative of intiatives and referenda is that they provide prime opportunities for politicians or groups with power, influence, and/or money to take blatant advantage of them. People with money to spend can easily beat out opponents with a smaller budget. People also twist proposals put on to the ballots and allow themselves loopholes, so that people think they are voting for one thing but end up passing the opposite. A prime example of this was an initiative to reform the Arizona payday loan system in which the payday loan groups themselves spent tons of money to "reform" the payday loan system, conveniently including loopholes that allowed it to continue on as before.
Initiatives and referenda do have their positives, but the damage they can do definately out weighs the opportunity for people to have a more direct say. The possibility that a backhanded or special interest initiative can be passed by ignorant voters or people with money cancels out the positive arguments of initiatives and referenda.
I have to agree with Molly and Bridget, because the initiative is a very effective and unique tool that allows voters to get a result on direct issue. If the people decide that a situation needs immediate reform, how else are they to attract attention? Using an initiative is the one of the only surefire ways to direct attention to an issue that has been perhaps ignored or overlooked in the past. Obviously, there will always be the group of voters who won't care to be informed on these issues, but these people will always be present in our society. This system is the most practical of giving state voters a voice.
I agree with everyone on the fact that allowing initiatives on ballots gives voters more incentive to go to the polls. Voting on a specific issue opposed to voting straight blue or red may be less stressful and easier than simply supporting one party or the other. It gives voters the impression that they really are voting for change in the country, which is what voting should be all about. I do however disagree with Molly's argument about uneducated voters. Saying that someone voting on an issue in an uneducated manner is a very controversial allegation. People tend to over think issues and claim to be educated on the topic. One's position on a matter usually can be determined at the moment they hear the the two sides of the argument and go with their gut feeling right off the bat. Just because someone doesn't keep up with the news every day or read every article on why gay marriage is immoral doesn't mean that their voice doesn't matter. The people who opt not to keep up with these controversial issues on a day to day basis tend to be the nucleus of the American people, which shows that their opinions can't be dismissed simply because of "lack of education" on a matter. Each side of an argument has its pro's and con's, so choosing either side can't have that much of a negative effect on the country.
I disagree that states should abolish the use of the initiative. I acknowledge Katherine's point about some voters being ignorant, however Mike also raises a good counterpoint when he writes that just because someone may not be as educated as others on a matter does not mean that their opinion doesn't matter. The initiative is an extremely effective way to allow voters to be heard in the grand political scheme. It doesn't allow much room to complain about the government when they are also afforded as much of a voice as an initiative does
In my opinion, the right to initiatives should be abolished in the states in which it is allowed. There are too many possibilities for unseen problems to occur. For example, the payday loan initiative in Arizona. The creators of the initiative made loopholes that most people wouldn't find. Once the initiative is passed, it cannot be revoked. If it were possible to have someone review each initiative first and make sure there are no loopholes, then it would be safer. The only problem with that is that you have to be able to trust the people and they would also cost more money. When just the citizens are voting on the initiatives they might not know certain aspects to look for that could cause problems. There are many educated voters in the United States but even they can sometimes overlook things. You could read as much information as possible about the initiative but there may still be something missing. Also, once the law is passed, if it is then decided that it is affecting the country negatively, there is no way to change it. This aspect of the government's voting process is just another way to trick voters into thinking they actually have a say in the election process. Also, a candidate could have an initiative issued in order to gain support of more voters. The problem with the government in my opinion is that government officials tend to not always follow through with the plans they propose and promise to follow through with. Although the initiatives do have positive aspects when it comes to involving the voters, they are often controlled by money, the aspect that controls much of government.
I believe California, Colorado, and all the other states that use the initiative should not abolish it's existence. Not only does the initiative give the American people a more direct opportunity to choose the laws of the United States, but it draws more voters to the polls. As it has been stated in previous blogs, voter turnout increases by an average 3 to 4 percent when an initiative is on the ballot. Referendums, which are Constitutional Amendments or laws that only go into effect if they are approved by voters, also seem to bring a similar increase in voter turnout.
The common theory that the American public is not intelligent as a whole is what creates most of the debate over initiatives. Although ignorance is present, the opportunity for the mass who are quite knowledgeable to vote for their own laws should not be denied. These ideas that are put on the ballot are very important to different groups of people. Initiatives have been raised over stem cell research, teacher salaries, immigration, and many more topics. People are affected every day by these controversial issues, and the initiative allows laws to pass, or not pass, in a more rapid and thorough fashion.
The initiative is a great tool for citizens to use to enact change within their state. It provides a means of overriding elected officials and gives power straight to the voter. However, the initiative should not be used to increase voter turnout, although it has been used for that purpose in the past. To stop this manipulation of the political process, initiatives should only be voted on on different days than other elections. Some important elections may have been affected by the initiative including the 2004 presidential election in Ohio, but having separate elections would hopefully end these problems. Initiatives can also have unintended effects that voters do not know about on voting day especially if initiative deal with more compex budget issues. I have to respectfully disagree with Mike on his statement that "people tend to overthink issues." I believe there are some risks associated with the initiative when there are uninformed voters. We elect legislators so they can spend their days reading over complicated bills that we can't read on our own time. Because they spend more time analyzing the issues, legislators should have a better idea than most citizens on possible unintended consequences. Therefore the initiative should be reserved for special circumstances when it is impossible to push legislation through the state congress. Additionally, even though an initiative might not get enough votes to pass, having it on the ballot certainly raises awareness of the issue. One successful California initiative came up in my everyday life when I was searching for wallets online. Under the description of a wallet read: "This item does not comply with California Proposition 65. Please visit help/info for more details on Proposition 65." After looking up information on Proposition 65 I found that it started when in 1986 California citizens approved an initiative to "address their growing concerns about exposure to toxic chemicals." That initiative eventually became the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, also known as Proposition 65. The Act required California to "publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects." The wallet did not comply with Proposition 65 because it was made of polyurethane which is known to cause some health problems. While I do not think the wallet would have killed me, I am glad I didn't buy the wallet thanks to Prop. 65. This is one initiative that has helped me even as a non-resident of California. This type of bill was perfect for the initiative because many companies that use toxic chemicals did not want the bill passed. Through interest groups these companies could have slowed or even stopped legislation in the state congress, but the initiative could not be stopped on voting day.
I agree with the above statement. States that use initiative and referendum laws should abolish them all together. For starters, many voters do not take the time to ponder what the long term consequences of potential laws or actions could be. Therefore the vote of the general public could prove detrimental to the condition of the state in the years down the road. (As was seen in California's recent economic debacle) If the vast majority of the public feels strongly enough about an issue then nobody is prohibiting them from organizing advocacy groups or writing letters and petitions in an attempt to raise public awareness and spark public interest of the issue. If a feeling about something is widespread enough then there are likely many politicians that the public could elect who would be willing to make the topic at hand a main point of discussion within the state government.
One thing that I do not understand is this frenzy over voter turnout. The only voting statistics that matter are percentages listed in the final result. Whether or not somebody decides to vote is entirely their own free choice. If one does not feel strongly enough about their government to decisively take the time to show up to one way or another then they should not be pressured into going to the polls and making uninformed decisions that could have a negative impact on the community. Voting is a right, not an obligation and if people choose to waive that right then their decision should not be brought into question.
I disagree that California, Colorado, and other states that use the initiative should abolish its use. I see the initiative as an effective tool in not only increasing the number of voters, but also as a tool that makes US citizens feel as though they are making contributions to the government. I feel that all too often politicians promise things in their campaigns to increase voter interest and once they are elected they "change their mind on an issue." Initiative allows voters to pass things that they are passionate about without the fear that the elected politician will "change his/her mind." Although I believe in initiative, I can see a few minor problems that may arise. While many of the voters educate themselves about the issues, some voters will vote on what is popular and not on what they believe in. This can cause problems since those voters may want to change the laws that they helped pass with initiative later on. Problems may also be caused by the controversy that surrounds many initiatives. As you will see on the worksheet that Mr. Kersey passed out, the "hot issues" that were the focus of initiatives in 2008 were rather controversial such as: abortion, immigration, drug policy, and anti-affirmative action. While some problems may arise with initiatives, the good outweighs the bad. Initiatives prove to be a sound democratic part of some states governments that helps voters bypass corrupt politicians and make their own decisions.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Molly in both the points she made. Initiatives should be used because they do increase the number of voter turn out. I agree that initiatives give voters the direct say that most feel they are lacking when electing representatives. Initiatives are a good way to bypass representatives and their personal opinions which may affect the result of their votes. Initiatives are also something that would cause voters to want to become more informed on political issues since they would begin to have more of a direct impact on the outcome. I also agree that there are downsides to initiatives. There will always be uninformed voters casting votes on important issues. However in a situation where the initiative is focused on a popular topic it can be a very productive way of the voters getting a direct result from their votes.
ReplyDeleteI agree that California, Colorado, and other states that use the initiative and referendum should abolish its use. In theory, it is a good idea to try and give more people more of a say, but in my opinion the negative points of initiatives and referenda outweigh the positives.
ReplyDeleteWhile initiatives and referenda do give people more of a say in government, the fact is that many of these voters are ignorant. It has nothing to do with education levels but simply that people are extremely busy and often do not have time to study all the issues thoroughly enough to make a truly informed decision. Including initiatives and referenda on the ballot has been proven to increase voter turnout 3-5%, but it also presents a prime opportunity for politicians to take advantage of the initiatives and try and get more voters from their political party out to vote for them. For example, in the 2004 election, Ohio became a battleground as both presidential candidates attempted to win the votes. Same-sex marriage was put on the ballot as the only issue, and there was an increase in conservative voters allowing Bush to win Ohio. I also think that those 3-5% of voters who are only voting because their particular initiative was put on the ballot are probably not too concerned with the actual candidate part of the voting, which could cause unintendid consequences.
Another major negative of intiatives and referenda is that they provide prime opportunities for politicians or groups with power, influence, and/or money to take blatant advantage of them. People with money to spend can easily beat out opponents with a smaller budget. People also twist proposals put on to the ballots and allow themselves loopholes, so that people think they are voting for one thing but end up passing the opposite. A prime example of this was an initiative to reform the Arizona payday loan system in which the payday loan groups themselves spent tons of money to "reform" the payday loan system, conveniently including loopholes that allowed it to continue on as before.
Initiatives and referenda do have their positives, but the damage they can do definately out weighs the opportunity for people to have a more direct say. The possibility that a backhanded or special interest initiative can be passed by ignorant voters or people with money cancels out the positive arguments of initiatives and referenda.
I have to agree with Molly and Bridget, because the initiative is a very effective and unique tool that allows voters to get a result on direct issue. If the people decide that a situation needs immediate reform, how else are they to attract attention? Using an initiative is the one of the only surefire ways to direct attention to an issue that has been perhaps ignored or overlooked in the past. Obviously, there will always be the group of voters who won't care to be informed on these issues, but these people will always be present in our society. This system is the most practical of giving state voters a voice.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone on the fact that allowing initiatives on ballots gives voters more incentive to go to the polls. Voting on a specific issue opposed to voting straight blue or red may be less stressful and easier than simply supporting one party or the other. It gives voters the impression that they really are voting for change in the country, which is what voting should be all about. I do however disagree with Molly's argument about uneducated voters. Saying that someone voting on an issue in an uneducated manner is a very controversial allegation. People tend to over think issues and claim to be educated on the topic. One's position on a matter usually can be determined at the moment they hear the the two sides of the argument and go with their gut feeling right off the bat. Just because someone doesn't keep up with the news every day or read every article on why gay marriage is immoral doesn't mean that their voice doesn't matter. The people who opt not to keep up with these controversial issues on a day to day basis tend to be the nucleus of the American people, which shows that their opinions can't be dismissed simply because of "lack of education" on a matter. Each side of an argument has its pro's and con's, so choosing either side can't have that much of a negative effect on the country.
ReplyDeleteI disagree that states should abolish the use of the initiative. I acknowledge Katherine's point about some voters being ignorant, however Mike also raises a good counterpoint when he writes that just because someone may not be as educated as others on a matter does not mean that their opinion doesn't matter. The initiative is an extremely effective way to allow voters to be heard in the grand political scheme. It doesn't allow much room to complain about the government when they are also afforded as much of a voice as an initiative does
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the right to initiatives should be abolished in the states in which it is allowed. There are too many possibilities for unseen problems to occur. For example, the payday loan initiative in Arizona. The creators of the initiative made loopholes that most people wouldn't find. Once the initiative is passed, it cannot be revoked. If it were possible to have someone review each initiative first and make sure there are no loopholes, then it would be safer. The only problem with that is that you have to be able to trust the people and they would also cost more money. When just the citizens are voting on the initiatives they might not know certain aspects to look for that could cause problems. There are many educated voters in the United States but even they can sometimes overlook things. You could read as much information as possible about the initiative but there may still be something missing. Also, once the law is passed, if it is then decided that it is affecting the country negatively, there is no way to change it. This aspect of the government's voting process is just another way to trick voters into thinking they actually have a say in the election process. Also, a candidate could have an initiative issued in order to gain support of more voters. The problem with the government in my opinion is that government officials tend to not always follow through with the plans they propose and promise to follow through with. Although the initiatives do have positive aspects when it comes to involving the voters, they are often controlled by money, the aspect that controls much of government.
ReplyDeleteI believe California, Colorado, and all the other states that use the initiative should not abolish it's existence. Not only does the initiative give the American people a more direct opportunity to choose the laws of the United States, but it draws more voters to the polls. As it has been stated in previous blogs, voter turnout increases by an average 3 to 4 percent when an initiative is on the ballot. Referendums, which are Constitutional Amendments or laws that only go into effect if they are approved by voters, also seem to bring a similar increase in voter turnout.
ReplyDeleteThe common theory that the American public is not intelligent as a whole is what creates most of the debate over initiatives. Although ignorance is present, the opportunity for the mass who are quite knowledgeable to vote for their own laws should not be denied. These ideas that are put on the ballot are very important to different groups of people. Initiatives have been raised over stem cell research, teacher salaries, immigration, and many more topics. People are affected every day by these controversial issues, and the initiative allows laws to pass, or not pass, in a more rapid and thorough fashion.
The initiative is a great tool for citizens to use to enact change within their state. It provides a means of overriding elected officials and gives power straight to the voter. However, the initiative should not be used to increase voter turnout, although it has been used for that purpose in the past. To stop this manipulation of the political process, initiatives should only be voted on on different days than other elections. Some important elections may have been affected by the initiative including the 2004 presidential election in Ohio, but having separate elections would hopefully end these problems.
ReplyDeleteInitiatives can also have unintended effects that voters do not know about on voting day especially if initiative deal with more compex budget issues. I have to respectfully disagree with Mike on his statement that "people tend to overthink issues." I believe there are some risks associated with the initiative when there are uninformed voters. We elect legislators so they can spend their days reading over complicated bills that we can't read on our own time. Because they spend more time analyzing the issues, legislators should have a better idea than most citizens on possible unintended consequences. Therefore the initiative should be reserved for special circumstances when it is impossible to push legislation through the state congress. Additionally, even though an initiative might not get enough votes to pass, having it on the ballot certainly raises awareness of the issue.
One successful California initiative came up in my everyday life when I was searching for wallets online. Under the description of a wallet read: "This item does not comply with California Proposition 65. Please visit help/info for more details on Proposition 65." After looking up information on Proposition 65 I found that it started when in 1986 California citizens approved an initiative to "address their growing concerns about exposure to toxic chemicals." That initiative eventually became the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, also known as Proposition 65. The Act required California to "publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects." The wallet did not comply with Proposition 65 because it was made of polyurethane which is known to cause some health problems. While I do not think the wallet would have killed me, I am glad I didn't buy the wallet thanks to Prop. 65. This is one initiative that has helped me even as a non-resident of California. This type of bill was perfect for the initiative because many companies that use toxic chemicals did not want the bill passed. Through interest groups these companies could have slowed or even stopped legislation in the state congress, but the initiative could not be stopped on voting day.
I agree with the above statement. States that use initiative and referendum laws should abolish them all together. For starters, many voters do not take the time to ponder what the long term consequences of potential laws or actions could be. Therefore the vote of the general public could prove detrimental to the condition of the state in the years down the road. (As was seen in California's recent economic debacle) If the vast majority of the public feels strongly enough about an issue then nobody is prohibiting them from organizing advocacy groups or writing letters and petitions in an attempt to raise public awareness and spark public interest of the issue. If a feeling about something is widespread enough then there are likely many politicians that the public could elect who would be willing to make the topic at hand a main point of discussion within the state government.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I do not understand is this frenzy over voter turnout. The only voting statistics that matter are percentages listed in the final result. Whether or not somebody decides to vote is entirely their own free choice. If one does not feel strongly enough about their government to decisively take the time to show up to one way or another then they should not be pressured into going to the polls and making uninformed decisions that could have a negative impact on the community. Voting is a right, not an obligation and if people choose to waive that right then their decision should not be brought into question.