Jump to content

Separate California into 2 States?


HuskyCaucasian

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 13, 2011 -> 12:27 PM)
Yeah, you gotta love people who want to get involved and enact change...

Simple majorities that can simultaneously mandate all sorts of programs and funding while also cutting off sources of revenue for said mandates are a bad thing. I don't really see how you could argue against that given Cali's current state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 13, 2011 -> 12:33 PM)
Simple majorities that can simultaneously mandate all sorts of programs and funding while also cutting off sources of revenue for said mandates are a bad thing. I don't really see how you could argue against that given Cali's current state.

 

I think that citizens being involved as much as possible in our government is a great idea. I'm not a fan of finding ways to remove them from it.

 

That being said, they should absolutely have to mandate funding, or spending cuts, to go with the program. But then again we really aren't into paying for things so it isn't surprising at all that part of the mandate was left off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 13, 2011 -> 01:33 PM)
Simple majorities that can simultaneously mandate all sorts of programs and funding while also cutting off sources of revenue for said mandates are a bad thing. I don't really see how you could argue against that given Cali's current state.

It's not just that...it's also how the initiatives are produced. They are lobbyist-written, whatever lobby you want to bash today (this can include Unions and Environmental groups btw), and the California Legislature cannot amend them.

 

Imagine what would happen on say, the environment, if we could get a 51% majority of the countries voters to turn out in favor of an article that massively strengthened the clean air act, and then had it impossible for Congress to ever weaken it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 13, 2011 -> 12:39 PM)
It's not just that...it's also how the initiatives are produced. They are lobbyist-written, whatever lobby you want to bash today (this can include Unions and Environmental groups btw), and the California Legislature cannot amend them.

 

Imagine what would happen on say, the environment, if we could get a 51% majority of the countries voters to turn out in favor of an article that massively strengthened the clean air act, and then had it impossible for Congress to ever weaken it?

 

They didn't even need that. Just 5 justices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 13, 2011 -> 12:38 PM)
I think that citizens being involved as much as possible in our government is a great idea. I'm not a fan of finding ways to remove them from it.

 

You don't need direct 50%+1 mandates (written by lobbyists, as Balta points out) in order to be involved in your own governance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 13, 2011 -> 01:40 PM)
They didn't even need that. Just 5 justices.

Oh, so when 5 justices do something it's a problem now? Congratulations President Gore! This will be a spectacular thing for the environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 13, 2011 -> 12:42 PM)
Oh, so when 5 justices do something it's a problem now? Congratulations President Gore! This will be a spectacular thing for the environment.

 

Obviously not. That is less participation for everyone!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 13, 2011 -> 12:42 PM)
You don't need direct 50%+1 mandates (written by lobbyists, as Balta points out) in order to be involved in your own governance.

 

As opposed to a billion dollar Presidential campaign being "involved"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 13, 2011 -> 01:43 PM)
As opposed to a billion dollar Presidential campaign being "involved"?

In the last 10 posts of this thread you've complained about how undemocratic votes by 5 justices are and how undemocratic spending large sums of money on Presidential Campaigns are.

 

I think I can officially go and roll around on my floor and laugh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 13, 2011 -> 12:45 PM)
In the last 10 posts of this thread you've complained about how undemocratic votes by 5 justices are and how undemocratic spending large sums of money on Presidential Campaigns are.

 

I think I can officially go and roll around on my floor and laugh.

 

If you think 5 votes of Justices are more democratic than 50% +1 of the people in a governed district, go ahead and keep laughing. I have no problem with that. To me, one person, one vote is way more democratic than one billion dollars or five justices. But with your firm belief that people shouldn't think for themselves, I am not at all surprised by you thinking any of this is humorous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 13, 2011 -> 12:54 PM)
If you think 5 votes of Justices are more democratic than 50% +1 of the people in a governed district, go ahead and keep laughing. I have no problem with that. To me, one person, one vote is way more democratic than one billion dollars or five justices. But with your firm belief that people shouldn't think for themselves, I am not at all surprised by you thinking any of this is humorous.

 

Shall I link you to some "Caylee's LAW!" facebook threads?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 13, 2011 -> 01:54 PM)
To me, one person, one vote is way more democratic than one billion dollars or five justices.

Thank you for your strenuous opposition to the Citizens United Decision and for your sudden and unexpected opposition to voter ID/disenfranchisement efforts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 13, 2011 -> 01:13 PM)
Thank you for your strenuous opposition to the Citizens United Decision and for your sudden and unexpected opposition to voter ID/disenfranchisement efforts.

 

I guess that means you are in favor of disenfranchisement by association?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 13, 2011 -> 01:16 PM)
Last I looked idiots are just as constitutionally protected as us geniuses are.

 

Last I looked we're a representative democracy!

 

eta I'm not arguing for a technocracy here, just against some of the apparent, easily observable dangers of direct democracy, mainly voter ignorance.

Edited by StrangeSox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...