Originally Posted By ecdc SPP linked to a series by The Economist in another thread on the broken California government, largely due to the 1978 Prop 13. The result has increased direct Democracy and decreased legislative power. The special report makes several recommendations, including shifting from initiatives to referendums and giving more power to the legislature. My question: how likely are these reforms? Do Californians grasp the seriousness of the situation, or will the state continue to slide towards what can only be termed disaster?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Short answer without a lot of analysis- some do grasp it, but it will take a Constitutional Convention to change things, and there's not enough support to make it happen. Whenever anyone starts in with how "all the liberals in wacko California" have overspent and taxed like crazy I laugh, because it just isn't true. Yes, the Democrats have majorities in both the state senate and assembly, but the GOP has absolutely assured themselves equal if not greater footing by manipulating the ballot initiative proces, starting with the vaunted Prop 13. Prop 13, since 1978, has screwed this state over big time. Besides the tax limitations it proscribed, it also mandated a 2/3's vote was necessary to pass any tax hike anywhere as well as a 2/3's majority to pass a budget. So while Democrats have a majority, they've never enjoyed a super majority, and that's why budgets are long overdue, no revenue gets created, etc. It's a tyranny of the minority here, not a bunch of liberals gone wild.
Originally Posted By Mr X Can you (Passholder) envision a solution to the problem? Even an interim one, perhaps? Or, is it just an impossible situation there that can't be fixed?
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< it will take a Constitutional Convention to change things, and there's not enough support to make it happen. >>> Why do you say that? Based on my understanding, one of the things that makes the California constitution so problematic is that it can be amended by a simple majority vote of the people during a single election by any particular initiative. That is, ballot initiatives take only a simple majority to pass, and they can not only enact statutes, but also amend the state constitution. So, the state constitution provides no protection whatever from the arbitrary whims of the voters, which may be influenced especially on short timescales by the event of the day, which is exactly the kind of thing the constitution is designed to prevent the legislature from making bad decisions on. But, my point is that this knife can cut both ways. If the state constitution can be amended by a simple majority vote in an initiative, why can't the problem be fixed via initiative? It doesn't need to take a Constitutional Convention (run by the powers that be) to "fix" things in California. If enough people (that is 50% + 1 of the voters) were to come to a consensus on how to fix things and vote for an initiative that did so, the problem could be fixed in one election without a constitution convention. Am I missing something here?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Here's something to read: <a href="http://www.calbuzz.com/category/repair-california/" target="_blank">http://www.calbuzz.com/categor...ifornia/</a>
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>But, my point is that this knife can cut both ways. If the state constitution can be amended by a simple majority vote in an initiative, why can't the problem be fixed via initiative?<< You think that pensionless voters will approve tax increases to save state employees pensions or jobs. I'm not saying they don't deserve their state jobs and pensions, just that I doubt voters will voluntarily raise there taxes to save them. Or balance the state budget.
Originally Posted By Kevin Flynn I don't understand any of this, but California is certainly very different in many ways. I will say that it's laughable to lay all blame on any single political party.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<I will say that it's laughable to lay all blame on any single political party.>> Who's laying blame solely on one party? The problem is that the state is systemically designed to produce mass compromise (hence the super-majority requirements), however, with the increased polarization b/t political parties, the likelihood of finding compromise becomes highly unlikely. <<Do Californians grasp the seriousness of the situation, or will the state continue to slide towards what can only be termed disaster?>> No, unfortunately the depth and scale of the problems is far beyond the patience of most of the electorate. They'll continue to use heuristic shortcuts like parties, pundits, or incumbents, and hope these people know what there are doing.
Originally Posted By Anatole69 What is the link to the Economist series? I really want to read it. - Anatole
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/18586520" target="_blank">http://www.economist.com/node/18586520</a> <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/18563638" target="_blank">http://www.economist.com/node/18563638</a>
Originally Posted By Kevin Flynn Well it sounded to me like it in post #2. It reads like (yes the Dems have majority but the GOp Is really to blame) paraphrased. It sounds just like stuff coming from the Left about the state of our country as well. Sort of like, yes we had majority in the house and senate for two years, but Bush is really to blame. The blame game is just old.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 But it this case it makes sense; Democrats may have the majority, but they don't have the super-majority necessary to change things, and Republicans aren't joining them to vote to change this broken system. So who's to blame here: the party with most members wanting to fix that problem, but lacking the 66% necessary, or the party who could join in to fix it but has almost no members voting to do so?
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Exactly, Dabob. That's how I see the first two years of Obama's Presidency as well. Senate Democrats were unable to vote on bills passed by the Dem-controlled House, because of constant filibustering by the Republicans and blue dog Dems. The Senate Democrats needed a super majority in order to get anything done, and they didn't have it. Kevin is deflecting from the real issue here. No one is "blaming" Bush for the failure of Senate Democrats to get bills passed and on President Obama's desk to sign. We're blaming the Senate Republicans for filibustering and not allowing the bills to come to the floor for a vote. The Democrats had a majority, but not a super majority. That's the reason why things did not get done, because of the tyranny of the minority in preventing the majority from acting. This is what's hampering California from getting effective legislation passed. The Republican minority is large enough to prevent the Democrats from having a super majority -- 66% -- needed to get things done. Getting rid of the super majority requirement is what finally needs to happen to turn our mess around, once and for all.
Originally Posted By Kevin Flynn Interesting. Maybe it's all about the problems with a 2 party system.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 The two party system, though not perfect, would work better in CA if not for the 2/3 required to pass certain things. That would be the case if there were 2 major parties, or 12.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Democrats may have the majority, but they don't have the super-majority necessary to change things*** In all fairness, they DID have just that for a little over a half of a year (don't let the right wingers fool you and claim it was "two years", but it WAS a fact for a brief period of time). And they got SOME things done, but not all they could have, and the blame rests squarely on their colleagues who wanted to "play politics" rather than get the work done...the Republicans, for a short time, had literally nothing to do with it as they were absolutely powerless if the Democrats had decided to collectively put their foot down. But now, the pendulum has swung, and we can see what THEY have to offer since the balance of power has once again shifted to their side largely (though not completely).
Originally Posted By Mr X ***The Senate Democrats needed a super majority in order to get anything done, and they didn't have it*** They DID have it for a brief time (more than a half of a year). So you can't use that as an excuse (and beyond even that, they had HUGE majorities in any case for 2 years...blame the blue dogs before you blame the Republicans for anything!). Just sayin.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Here's something to read: >>> I read it. It still doesn't address my point, which I'll try to make a bit more clear: In California, all it takes to amend the state constitution is a simple majority of the vote by the voters on any initiative. This is why there are so many hard-and-fast rules built into the constitution that the legislature cannot change. It's also why there's a 2/3 super-majority requirement for any tax increase, because Prop 13 put it in the constitution. My point is that unlike the federal constitution, the state constitution could be changed to fix these problems just as easily as it was to get into the current mess in the first place. It doesn't take a super-majority of the legislature. It doesn't take a constitutional convention. It doesn't take a super-majority of the voters. It doesn't take multiple elections. All it would take a single initiative that had sensible reforms, and was passed by 50% + 1 of the voters. Just like any other initiative, such an initiative could make any changes required to the constitution. All it takes is a plan that 50% + 1 of the people agree on, and it's done.
Originally Posted By Mr X Wow. The skeptical side of me thinks that you must be missing something. That just sounds WAY too easy.
