{"id":462,"date":"2010-05-13T10:23:51","date_gmt":"2010-05-13T17:23:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.knuetter.com\/christian\/?p=462"},"modified":"2010-05-13T10:23:51","modified_gmt":"2010-05-13T17:23:51","slug":"prop-16-and-the-california-constitutional-congress","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.knuetter.com\/christian\/2010\/05\/13\/prop-16-and-the-california-constitutional-congress\/","title":{"rendered":"Prop 16 and the California Constitutional Congress"},"content":{"rendered":"

I’ve been seeing a lot of ads for Prop. 16 lately and it reminds me just how screwed up California can be.<\/p>\n

I used to be a big fan of California’s propositions. \u00a0I thought that it was a way to get the people more directly involved in government and elections.<\/p>\n

I was young and innocent.<\/p>\n

\n
\"Seal<\/a>
Image via Wikipedia<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

The propositions have long been a way for interest groups to circumvent the legislature and use the uneducated masses to vote on items that they don’t understand. \u00a0And they’re just getting worse.<\/p>\n

I’m not trying to be harsh on the masses. \u00a0When I say uneducated, I’m referring to their awareness of the propositions and their content. \u00a0Most people just don’t spend any time to understand what it is they’re voting for (or against).<\/p>\n

Prop 16 is a great example of this. \u00a0The “Taxpayers’ Right To Vote” proposition. \u00a0Who doesn’t like the right to vote? \u00a0Why, on the face of it, of course taxpayers should have the right to vote. \u00a0But that of course is the problem. \u00a0Most people won’t look past the simple description of the ballot measure.<\/p>\n

What this proposition is really about is whether California governments should get into ‘public power.’ (I don’t want to trouble with debating the merits or detriments of public power – that’s a separate topic.) \u00a0Because what this proposition says, if it passes, is that, should the government be truly interested in getting into public power, they’ll first need a 2\/3 majority vote by the public to approve such a move. \u00a0And think about that – 2\/3 majority is just about impossible. \u00a0Just ask someone trying to pass national healthcare or a California budget. \u00a0And these were passed by legislatives. \u00a0It’s hard to imagine the general public voting 2\/3 for anything.<\/p>\n

So basically, all one needs to do to change the law is to get a proposition passed (with a simple majority, by the way) that calls for future votes to require a 2\/3 majority vote. \u00a0In doing so, you lock in your own view and make it near impossible for any future changes. \u00a0And how does one do that? \u00a0Just throw a bunch of money behind it. \u00a0PG&E has already supported this measure with over $30 million (while opponents have raised about $50,000).<\/p>\n

More and more I’ve become a fan of a constitutional congress for the state. \u00a0Of course that process has the potential to be filled with missteps and problems but we’re getting to the point where almost anything would be better than what we have today.<\/p>\n

\"\"