Support NeoGAF

[BertramCooper]

Well, Switzerland does it ok, even with the random racist belch here and there.

Switzerland makes it with 100,000 signatures out of a population of 8 million, give it or take. Would that be ok with you?

No, it wouldn't be.

 

[PeregrinSe7en]

The BEST COAST isn't meant to be broken up into smaller states

 

[ab.aeterno]

Well, Switzerland does it ok, even with the random racist belch here and there. Granted, their population is highly educated, which is something that California would need in order to improve the quality of its own system.

Here, let me make it clear why direct democracy is a terrible idea for the US, based on my previous examples:

If we assume people would vote roughly equal to how they approved:

Interracial marriage would not have been legalized until around 1997. That's thirty years after it was actually legalized by the court system in the case Loving v. Virginia (against the, at the time, wishes of around 80-85% of the country.) And that's ignoring the fact that approval probably increased because it became normal as people legally wed, not in spite of it. It likely would've taken even longer otherwise.

 

[Kerned]

Even assuming, for the sake of argument, everyone in California voted for this and the Congress decided it was a fantastic idea, its still likely illegal:

Article IV, Section 3 reads: "New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress."

The initiative process is not the legislature of the states concerned, moreover, its questionable whether "states concerned" means "the state of California as presented right now," or "each of the 6 proposed states."

"States concerned" would clearly be the present state of California. There are no legislatures for non-existent states. It seems perfectly legal to me assuming it clears all the required hurdles, which it never will.

 

[Funky Papa]

No, it wouldn't be.

So which % would you consider fair?

One of the problems with direct democracy as I see it is that not many people have the impetus to launch and support a proposal, but a large part of the population will vote if they get enough support. Thus the need to keep a low floor.

This is how I see it anyway.

Here, let me make it clear why direct democracy is a terrible idea for the US, based on my previous examples:

If we assume people would vote roughly equal to how they approved:

Interracial marriage would not have been legalized until around 1997. That's thirty years after it was actually legalized by the court system in the case Loving v. Virginia (against the, at the time, wishes of around 80-85% of the country.) And that's ignoring the fact that approval probably increased because it became normal as people legally wed, not in spite of it. It likely would've taken even longer otherwise.

Oh, I fully understand you. But a direct democracy can have different degrees of public involvement.

 

[Mr.Mike]

Here, let me make it clear why direct democracy is a terrible idea for the US, based on my previous examples:

If we assume people would vote roughly equal to how they approved:

Interracial marriage would not have been legalized until around 1997. That's thirty years after it was actually legalized by the court system in the case Loving v. Virginia (against the, at the time, wishes of around 80-85% of the country.) And that's ignoring the fact that approval probably increased because it became normal as people legally wed, not in spite of it. It likely would've taken even longer otherwise.

You could easily turn this argument around to show bad things that might not have happened under direct democracy. Wars, gerrymandering etc. Certainly US foregin policy might be incredibly different today if it actually conformed to the desires of the electorate over the years.

 

[BertramCooper]

So which % would you consider fair?

I'd say at least 15-20% of registered voters.

But I'm not a political science expert or anything. Just basing my opinion on California's initiative system and my own state's initiative system (Ohio - whose threshold is much higher than California's but still far lower than it should be).

 

[Casimir]

Does this mean SoCal will die of thirst?

Los Angeles is guaranteed water rights under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. If the states break up, during a drought, it will only get harder for the north and central valley to demand let alone receive the water that is normally transported to the south. Additionally, any water shortage would impact the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports, which handle around half of the shipping in the U.S.

 

[Gorillaz]

There are levels to this Redistricting game. I don't live in Cali either, but I think that is a dumb idea.

 

[Mista Koo]

I've seen a lady on the bus collecting signatures to stop this.

 

[Pryce]

If one of those states aren't renamed "New California Republic" then everything will be for nothing.

 

[Mr.Mike]

I've seen a lady on the bus collecting signatures to stop this.

Can you sign a counter-petition? Wouldn't you just have to run a campaign telling people to vote against the initiative at the ballot?

 

[gutter_trash]

I'm against direct democracy because the majority of people are just ignorant and dumb.

The majority should never ever have a say in the removal of right of the minority

 

[Makai]

This is unconstitutional.

 

[Weetrick]

If this happened I would live and work in different states. Weird.

 

[AstroNut325]

This is unconstitutional.

Yes. Which is why I believe most people are saying this is just one HUGE waste of time.

 

[ab.aeterno]

You could easily turn this argument around to show bad things that might not have happened under direct democracy. Wars, gerrymandering etc. Certainly US foregin policy might be incredibly different today if it actually conformed to the desires of the electorate over the years.

I'm not saying direct democracy is incapable of having good outcomes, but that given a long human history of oppression of minorities, I don't exactly trust people with measurably discriminatory beliefs to govern a diverse populace fairly.

 

[Kerned]

This is unconstitutional.

I don't see how it is. It's gross, congress would never okay it and it's a waste of time, but I don't think there is anything in the constitution that would prevent this.

 

[nelchaar]

I'll just leave this here too:

The gerrymandering continues, and evolves into a whole new scale.

 

[Angry Grimace]

"States concerned" would clearly be the present state of California. There are no legislatures for non-existent states. It seems perfectly legal to me assuming it clears all the required hurdles, which it never will.

It is not so cut and dry. First of all there frequently are legislatures for non-existent states because they are typically federally owned territories, moreover, that language generally applies to creating new states out of parts of other states, not entirely within a single state.

I don't see how it is. It's gross, congress would never okay it and it's a waste of time, but I don't think there is anything in the constitution that would prevent this.

I would tend to believe that it is unconstitutional in the sense that such a vote would have a legal effect since the initiative process is not the same as legislative approval.

 

[Gr1mLock]

Bro you got a billion dollars. Calm the fuck down. Go snort some coke off a strippers ass. Why are they most hateful people in this country the richest ones?

 

[Kerned]

It is not so cut and dry. First of all there frequently are legislatures for non-existent states because they are typically federally owned territories, moreover, that language generally applies to creating new states out of parts of other states, not entirely within a single state.

I'm not sure the language makes that distinction. The first part is clear enough:

"New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union;

But then it says none of the following things can happen:

but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states,

UNLESS this stuff happens:

without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress."

It seems the constitution specifically allows for this sort of thing.

I would tend to believe that it is unconstitutional in the sense that such a vote would have a legal effect since the initiative process is not the same as legislative approval.

So the initiative process would have to be the beginning of the whole legislative process, not the only step. This would have to clear the voters, the state legislature and the US congress.

But look, I am no lawyer. I just think this is all fascinating, mostly because there is so little chance of it working out the way this guy hopes.

 

[Gallbaro]

This would generally benefit the West Coast as a region, with more senators presumable voicing the similar concerns of the region.


On top of that, if you like dealing with the federal government, look at all that commerce crossing all those state lines.

 

[davepoobond]

OG gerrymandering making a comeback y'all