Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ubc-ean.CDN Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!ubc-vision!ubc-ean!robinson From: robinson@ubc-ean.CDN (Jim Robinson) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Referendums and Initiatives Message-ID: <854@ubc-ean.CDN> Date: Mon, 29-Oct-84 00:06:42 EST Article-I.D.: ubc-ean.854 Posted: Mon Oct 29 00:06:42 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 29-Oct-84 09:35:45 EST Organization: UBC EAN, Vancouver, B.C., Canada Lines: 136 > > The main problem with initiatives is that their effects are seldom thought > through beyond the immediate impact. Of course people will support > an initiative that at the same time declares (i) taxes will be reduced, > (ii) the civil service will be cut, (iii) government services will > be improved. Please give the electorate some credit. It doesn't take a university degree to realize that items (i) and (ii) will conflict with item (iii). > Unfortunately, though the initiative would probably pass, > the effects would not occur: somebody broke the new law. Who is responsible? > Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction when an initiative results > in a conflict between human law and natural law? What happens when > the result is the opposite of what the original pressure group promised? If the initiative passed then taxes would go down and the civil service would be cut. Thus, at least 2 of the three effects are *guaranteed* to occur. Note that I consider items (i) and (ii) to be effects, whereas for some reason you appear to consider them to be means of achieving item (iii). What, pray tell, law is being broken? There is one heck of a difference between a desired result not being achieved and a law being broken. ( otherwise our fearless leaders in Ottawa, past and present, would be guilty of crimes too numerous to count ) If , for the sake of argument, I accept that items (i) and (ii) are the means of achieving item (iii), and if the initiative passed and item (iii) was not achieved I can't for the life of me understand how a law was broken! Please feel free to clarify this point if I'm missing something here. I am not sure what a natural law is, but if it is what I think it is then an argument can be made that there already exists conflicts between natural law and human law; even without the existence of initiatives. As for what happens when the result is the opposite of what the original "pressure" group promised: No problem. The electorate will realize they made a mistake and will vote accordingly next time around. And if indeed the result was opposite what was promised you can count on the other side getting the issue on ballot again. In fact, I would bet that the electorate would be much more likely to admit to having screwed up than your average politician, given that politicians' are notorious for being able to point a finger at any and every one except themselves. > In a referendum initiated by our representatives, at least there has > been a period of consideration, both about the wording and about what > some of the side effects may be. You can complain all you want about > "stupid" politicians, but I have yet to meet one who was as stupid as > the average person. They have to deal with a huge number of issues, > and that's why they have staffs and why we pay for research staffs for > both the government and the opposition. This period of consideration would also exist with initiatives. It would be called the campaign. I've never complained about stupid politicians and I don't recall anyone else doing so either. Like you, I believe that they are probably above average in intelligence. What I have complained about is self-serving politicians which, unfortunately, is what the majority of them are. > Referenda are appropriate on non-technical issues, where it is going > to be possible to implement the results whichever way the voting goes, > without damaging the objectives that the voters thought they were approving. > Referenda are not suitable on methods of achieving objectives. At the > moment the fashionable one is capital punishment for murder. The objective > is presumably reduced probability of being murdered; it is simply not > appropriate to ask people who do not understand the ins and outs of > the question to vote on methods of achieving this objective. The last > referendum was on independence for Quebec. That was an appropriate topic > for a referendum, since it defined the objective, not the means. If you are trying to imply that the policies our beloved politicians implement on our behalf *always* achieve their stated objective, then perhaps I can interest you in this *really* tall tower I've got for sale in Toronto. If you are not trying to imply this then there exist no differences between policies implemented via a referendum/initiative and those implemented by the politicians w.r.t. the likelihood of the policy achieving the desired goal. Appropriately run campaigns will point out the negative side effects, if any, of the the implementation of the opposing side's views. Using your example again, I suspect the opposition would have a field day with any group that claims it can reduce taxes, cut the civil service, and yet improve gov't services. If the electorate did indeed vote on that initiative and pass it, it would probably be because they thought they were paying too much in taxes and were willing to accept possibly *reduced* gov't services. I.e. as hard as it may be for some of you to believe the average person is not the uneducated and/or stupid slob that many university educated types think she/he is, and are, in fact, quite capable of recognising when they are being handed a line. And yes, they are also quite capable of differentiating between an end and a means, and, more importantly, of evaluating a given means to determine if it will achieve a given end. I would also like to point out that your choice of independence for Quebec as being an appropriate topic for a referendum because it defined the objective and not the means is, as far as I am concerned, flawed since it can be argued that independence for Quebec is a *means* of achieving the *objective* of preservation of national heritage, culture, and identity. > My vote: No on initiatives, occasionally yes on referenda. > > My suggestion: Pay more for research staff for both government and > opposition, and enforce a rule requiring disclosure of the findings > of both sides, before approval by the political masters. Your suggestion is the dinosaur approach that has been used for at least the last 20 years: If a problem exists then throw money at it ( and perhaps for good measure set up a Royal Commission ). This approach has resulted in the current deficit fiasco that this country faces and more of the same is merely throwing kerosine on the fire. It seems that basically all this boils down to the fact that you consider the average person much too stupid to be able to properly exercise some direct control over his/her life, thus necessitating that virtually all political power to be in the hands of a few; while I believe that Joe Blow off the street has every right *and* capability to make these decisions, and that too much power in the hands of too few people is not a good state of affairs. J.B. Robinson [It is rather interesting to note that judging by the sides we are taking on this issue Martin Taylor would make an excellent republican, whereas I would make a great democrat ( note the small d and small r )]