Should the United States adopt a national referendum process that allows citizens to directly vote?
Yes because it would give us the direct ability to represent ourselves not just an elected politician who will more than likely put a spin on what the peoples real issues and concerns are!
What are pros and cons of a national initiative process?
The advantage is that the will of the people could be known, that people could bypass an obstructivist Congress on issues like gay marriage and gun control, Social Security and Medicare. The disadvantage is something we see here in California with our initiative process. Anyone with money can hire people to get signatures on petitions to put a measure on the ballot, and then flood the airwaves with misleading ads. So basically anyone with a few million dollars can just -buy- any law they want! In fact, our state legislature is paralyzed between competing special interests, so the initiative process is almost the only way to pass -any- law. We have an ongoing argument in the US over whether elected representatives and senators should always vote the way the majority of their constituents want, or whether we're hiring them to use their own judgement. With a national initiative process, we'd have an uninformed majority passing laws with all kinds of hidden motives. I think it would be a mess.
What is to stop any state with a ballot initiative process from reversing a constitutional amendment?
To discuss this question, we'll look at California, which has the most expansive ballot initiative process of any US state (indeed, quite possibly of any government anywhere).In California, there are two types of ballot initiative petitions. One type is an ordinary ballot initiative, which, if approved by a majority of voters, becomes an ordinary law of the state of California. A law adopted in California through the ballot initiative cannot be altered by the Legislature; it can only be altered by a subsequent ballot initiative. However, an ordinary ballot initiative cannot adopt a law that would violate either the California constitution or the United States Constitution; such a law would be, if adopted, struck down by the courts.The other type of ballot initiative petition in California is a petition that seeks to amend the state constitution. The California constitution admits of three mechanisms for amendment, all of which require the acceptance of a majority of the electorate. If the People agree to one amendment, and then later agree to a second amendment that repeals or reverts the first amendment, then the law most recently adopted (the reversion) is the one that governs. Since, in California, all changes to the Constitution require the approval of a majority of the electorate, there is no concern that the legislature could revert the amendment because such a change is not within their power.As far as I know, in every US state, the legislature acting alone does not have the power to alter the constitution of that state; changes to the constitution must always be approved by the electorate in a general referendum. Of course, a state could amend its constitution so as not to require this, but (as it stands now) such an amendment would require the approval of the electorate to implement.
Why does Britain adopt EU initiatives with greater zest than other more Europhilic member states?
While this is partly true, some Urban Myths, and some anti EU propaganda from the press barons, have persuaded people it is totally true, whereas it is not.A prime example was the political storm that raged when Bombardier in Derby lost the contract to supply new carriages. Under EU regulations stated that contracts like that have to be sent out to tender and the best price accepted. The British interpreted that as being the lowest price and did not believe that social aspects such as redundancies and homelessness etc resulting from the decision could be applied. However, under EU regulations these considerations could Definitely be added as a cost to the tender and as a result if the British purchasing officers had applied the EU rules correctly, Bombardier would have won the contract. West Pembrokeshire authority have been applying these rules properly for some years and many contracts that would have gone abroad under other councils, have remained locally sourced.Another factor is that many councils in the UK don’t apply for grants from the EU. Where I live in France, every new road layout has a big board showing where the funding comes from and always has a grant from the EU. I have never seen such a sign in the UK and a colleague of mine has a planning relative who was sanctioned for failing to realise that the council could get such a grant for infrastructure works.So, what often appears as over zealous british application is in fact the opposite-a failure to read and apply the rules properly, unlike other EU countries and administration.
What does the word initiative mean to you
1 The power or ability to begin or to follow through energetically with a plan or task; enterprise and determination. 2 A beginning or introductory step; an opening move: took the initiative in trying to solve the problem. 3 A The power or right to introduce a new legislative measure. B The right and procedure by which citizens can propose a law by petition and ensure its submission to the electorate
Should the United States adopt an electronic direct democracy?
Direct democracy was my childhood dream. Until I learned more about human nature…I still think it *may* be a valid complement to representative democracy, however it will need a “VERY” different constitution — most constitutions in the world were built around the idea of representative democracy.When you have election, you have 2 distinctively different sets of “rights” - rights to propose a topic for vote, and “right” to vote.Representative democracy says “everyone have rights to vote”, but elected representatives are the ones who have rights to make Proposal (and likely will vote for it as well).So even if you have direct democracy, the mere cost of everyone can propose something, and that amount of time wasted just to read millions of new proposals by everyone everyday is simply unmanageable. That’s pretty much an efficiency issue - if you allow everyone to propose and everyone to decide, in essence you created a multi-to-multi relationship and as the nodes increases, the “link” increases exponentially - that's why most countries have a house with hundreds of members - for those where thousands of representatives are elected to their congress, they are unlikely to be a real democracy - their representatives are unlikely to have same rights to propose acts, bills, etc”. Damn math….that’s why direct democracy existed, but not very popular - this is like referendum all the time for all the issues.I still hope electronic voting can bring down some of the costs of direct democracy, so we can have more referendums due to the reduced complexity and cost. Yet, we still have to allow a limited number of members of congress to be able to “propose bills”. It’s simple math that we won’t be able to manage a complete direct democracy given the population.
Should the United States adopt some form of national referendum, like having a vote before going to war?
would it add to the bogging down of the government? or would it assist the public in feeling as if they have a say in the decisions our leaders we "vote" in do for us? in the case of north korea, is it ok for the president to act upon the actions of north koreas leader and not inform the public?
How do you use the word initiative in a sentence?
Take the initiative to think about how to sentence it. lol.
Why do people in individual states get to vote on legislature but the federal government over the United States does not?
And thank God they don’t. In a direct democracy the average person is expected to read and understand complex laws and be able to make an educated assessment and vote yes or no. That is simply so ludicrous is laughable. The problem is that some state have actually done that very stupid thing and adopted initiative voting laws. The average American citizen is such an uneducated idiot that there is no way in God's name he is ever going to understand what he’s voting on sufficiently to make an informed vote. Just think of how stupid your neighbor is and imagine that half of the voters are even dumber than him. That’s the problem. You lower the level of intelligence of the people who are deciding on a complex law from a trained legal legislature to the level of the average person. It doesn’t work and it never will. God help us.