CA-SurveyUSA: Gay Marriage Ban likely to be approved

[muon2]

It takes a simple majority in a referendum to change the constitution? Chilling.

No, what's chilling is that they let people vote on it in the first place.  I say that if you're going to let people vote on it, then it should only require a majority.  This is common, by the way, in the western states.  Texas, for example, has around 400 amendments to its constitution.

Of course, the better way do it is via representative democracy.  And I think that's more common back east.  What's the point of paying a legislature if you're going to end up putting everything out there as a binding resolution for the great unwashed masses? 

The problem occurs when the leadership of the state realizes that letting constitutional questions out for a vote only weakens their control. If their is no mechanism for direct public amendments, then power can be skillfully consolidated. IL is an excellent example of this, where there are clear court issues pointing out problems in the constitution, but no questions to the voters in the last 10 years.

[muon2]

It takes a simple majority in a referendum to change the constitution? Chilling.

No, what's chilling is that they let people vote on it in the first place.  I say that if you're going to let people vote on it, then it should only require a majority.  This is common, by the way, in the western states.  Texas, for example, has around 400 amendments to its constitution.

Of course, the better way do it is via representative democracy.  And I think that's more common back east.  What's the point of paying a legislature if you're going to end up putting everything out there as a binding resolution for the great unwashed masses? 

The problem occurs when the leadership of the state realizes that letting constitutional questions out for a vote only weakens their control. If their is no mechanism for direct public amendments, then power can be skillfully consolidated. IL is an excellent example of this, where there are clear court issues pointing out problems in the constitution, but no questions to the voters in the last 10 years.

Other side of the coin.  The insider's view is always helpful, but the main question to the voters is probably the most relevant:  do you want muon2 to continue to represent you?  We layfolks simply don't have the time or the inclination to make informed decisions.  That's why we elected you in the first place.  We assumed you had the interest and the ability to think long and hard about the issues confronting us, and went into the deliberations without pride or prejudice or passion, listened to all arguments, arrived at a logical conclusion, and voted in a way that you think best serves the people of the district and of the state. 

Yes for the vast majority of issues, but for instance who should set the rules for the elected officials? There are times that the rules need an outside look or the officials will set rules primarily for their own sake, not that of the public. Gerrymandering of districts is a classic example of this. I think a balance between the amendment-happy system in CA and the lack of direct input I see here in IL would be preferred.