I've seen at times a greater share of referendums placed in the context of democracy. For instance, Monorail initiatives, or state based local health care reform. The monorail initiative as it turns out, as I had found out from long term residents had repeatedly found its way onto voting ballots. It would pass, only to be rescinded by another referendum, owing to likely socio-political and economic vacillations, or if given something in the first place statistically marginally passed, all the difference between win and defeat is given to the day of a passage, and as for referendum processes there could be another day simply to defeat what had been passed. In other cases, I've read through the often verbose and at times, even for lay language, legal creep appearing in referendum measures. For instance, if you understood one part of health care reform as given to reducing legal liabilities and malpractice, you might have read this in some way as potentially a conservative based 'initiative' as opposed to typically a democratic one. Although for the hood winking where less political theory has been explained, or why one particular political ideological camp may be supportive versus less supportive of other types of measures, the problem with initiatives and referendums alone is given to a line item displacement of passing something that 'sounds good in theory' until you really consider the details. Such as you might be able to get all sorts of initiatives that 'sound great' to people popularly, that could literally sink a state's coffers if fully enacted, but who is to inform people wisely? Of course, we assume that people read the details, the fine print, understand what it is they are doing, and if a career politician/lawyer introduces the legislation and presents his sets of views, one might expect something of a counter to it. In theory, what descends down the pipeline are interest groups and advocates alike that spread any education on a given initiatives for those whose livelihoods may be at stake, or maybe someone is a consummate local news reader. The initiative/referendum process bolsters political leadership when it is clear that a leader has been not only popularly elected but also has a 'mandate' to state that he/she is leading for a people on a given cause, but what happens when the leader promises something that may not ultimately be there, or that others would be fully obliged in providing? That is promising something knowingly destined to failure.
Consider then a point in which politicians say and make promises and explain what it is they are and aren't doing, although it seems that this is never all always accurate, or that passage of legislation is given to any level of political accountability. Here the expectation is that the voter does her homework in studying relevant issues to his personal life, and then suddenly a new learning curve is sprung on a given population. Yes, to understand issues here more deeply with a given side presenting a 'pro' case, versus a 'con' case. The learning curve as it turns out, perhaps, may have been a bit steep and deliberately obfuscating language presented in the matter of not explaining what it is that were going on. One might be reliant on a conservative 'No' vote for a measure when something isn't so clearly and well understood...this is political statistical work.
The problem, however, with an initiative or even referendum is that 'mandate' aside, if cost overrides result from miscalculation with respect to the original direct vote, as it turns out the reality could also be rescinding, something of the referendum killing stratagem, I've seen in the past. It seems as likely true if there are nearly equally enough opponents to a given measure, perhaps, at times there are many pathways to killing it. It seems there is a possibility that one votes for something that one may not be getting, or as it turns out in other cases, the construction of law by referendums and initiatives were poor in the legal context...court systems, for instance, over turn a particular proposition in the past. Sometimes modern political parlance attacking judicial branches claim that democracy is strongly vested in the people solely, and decrying similarly the limitation of the rights of courts saying otherwise. Court activism used to be more commonly regarded in the lower judiciary echelons at least more vociferously in certain media while taking advantage of the notion of 'democracy' in the creation of initiatives and referendums. Does the legacy of an initiative last for several months, years at that, or is it slated to failure in the long run? Here when a popularly perceived piece of legislation is declared unconstitutional (in the referendum context), it may be declared invariably as given by an activist judiciary by others. I mention this aside since it is important role and relationship in the functioning of political activists putting forth such direct mandate. As maligned, for instance, that some may have decried legislation put forth amounting to tens of thousands of pages of documents with a given bill, it is also at times more difficult to encapsulate in precise common language the elements of what should happen next. The lesser seen view of this is that problematic details may have emerged later, how much is required in saying precisely limitations of damage for malpractice...is one size fits all going to work with respect to the limitation of damages? I recall a reading of an initiative that I believe failed to pass of this type, and I voted against it, only riding on all the hidden details running in mind that were absent in provisioned language on the bill. On the other hand, one might suspect any number of minds out there feel reticent for any after thought with respect to the minimalist approach to finer print. Here, as it turns out, a politician him or herself may or may not read the entire contents of what were being voted on, or perhaps, had a series of advisers explaining things that everyday lay readers would be less accustomed to. A senator may want to know what exactly appropriations are given in the way of scientific research, and then translation between science work and lay languages is another matter, but at least politicians have the position of reading and understanding what it is they are doing in so far as governing as a sole occupation as opposed to one given by a likely incidental reading. We elect people to do their jobs as politicians that is understanding the issues that concern us, not merely to have us claim erroneously that we alone are empowered enough to make decisions in a world that filled with a tremendous number of decisions to be made. One might expect a given politician not to have people deciding line item on the finer points of failed negotiations here in a given mandate, or attempting to coerce that. When politicians fail their mandates, as in either do too much or too little, it is usually given that political repercussion results. As in the recent Greek debt crisis and upcoming referendum vote, I am not certain what leverage the Greek pm really has to gain, however...if people vote pro union then he has more to lose than gain. A confirmed vote one may wonder may not hold way to solidarity of views in certain respects...anti unionism...not necessarily according to recent polling...anti austerity...yes...but this one should imagine perhaps, heavily nuanced at times especially in consideration to changing gravity of matters. It is a cheap shot to the notion of 'democracy' that poor language results in the construction of a referendum equally devised in a way so as to manipulate people not for 'democratic' betterment, but in manipulating people.
Consider then a point in which politicians say and make promises and explain what it is they are and aren't doing, although it seems that this is never all always accurate, or that passage of legislation is given to any level of political accountability. Here the expectation is that the voter does her homework in studying relevant issues to his personal life, and then suddenly a new learning curve is sprung on a given population. Yes, to understand issues here more deeply with a given side presenting a 'pro' case, versus a 'con' case. The learning curve as it turns out, perhaps, may have been a bit steep and deliberately obfuscating language presented in the matter of not explaining what it is that were going on. One might be reliant on a conservative 'No' vote for a measure when something isn't so clearly and well understood...this is political statistical work.
The problem, however, with an initiative or even referendum is that 'mandate' aside, if cost overrides result from miscalculation with respect to the original direct vote, as it turns out the reality could also be rescinding, something of the referendum killing stratagem, I've seen in the past. It seems as likely true if there are nearly equally enough opponents to a given measure, perhaps, at times there are many pathways to killing it. It seems there is a possibility that one votes for something that one may not be getting, or as it turns out in other cases, the construction of law by referendums and initiatives were poor in the legal context...court systems, for instance, over turn a particular proposition in the past. Sometimes modern political parlance attacking judicial branches claim that democracy is strongly vested in the people solely, and decrying similarly the limitation of the rights of courts saying otherwise. Court activism used to be more commonly regarded in the lower judiciary echelons at least more vociferously in certain media while taking advantage of the notion of 'democracy' in the creation of initiatives and referendums. Does the legacy of an initiative last for several months, years at that, or is it slated to failure in the long run? Here when a popularly perceived piece of legislation is declared unconstitutional (in the referendum context), it may be declared invariably as given by an activist judiciary by others. I mention this aside since it is important role and relationship in the functioning of political activists putting forth such direct mandate. As maligned, for instance, that some may have decried legislation put forth amounting to tens of thousands of pages of documents with a given bill, it is also at times more difficult to encapsulate in precise common language the elements of what should happen next. The lesser seen view of this is that problematic details may have emerged later, how much is required in saying precisely limitations of damage for malpractice...is one size fits all going to work with respect to the limitation of damages? I recall a reading of an initiative that I believe failed to pass of this type, and I voted against it, only riding on all the hidden details running in mind that were absent in provisioned language on the bill. On the other hand, one might suspect any number of minds out there feel reticent for any after thought with respect to the minimalist approach to finer print. Here, as it turns out, a politician him or herself may or may not read the entire contents of what were being voted on, or perhaps, had a series of advisers explaining things that everyday lay readers would be less accustomed to. A senator may want to know what exactly appropriations are given in the way of scientific research, and then translation between science work and lay languages is another matter, but at least politicians have the position of reading and understanding what it is they are doing in so far as governing as a sole occupation as opposed to one given by a likely incidental reading. We elect people to do their jobs as politicians that is understanding the issues that concern us, not merely to have us claim erroneously that we alone are empowered enough to make decisions in a world that filled with a tremendous number of decisions to be made. One might expect a given politician not to have people deciding line item on the finer points of failed negotiations here in a given mandate, or attempting to coerce that. When politicians fail their mandates, as in either do too much or too little, it is usually given that political repercussion results. As in the recent Greek debt crisis and upcoming referendum vote, I am not certain what leverage the Greek pm really has to gain, however...if people vote pro union then he has more to lose than gain. A confirmed vote one may wonder may not hold way to solidarity of views in certain respects...anti unionism...not necessarily according to recent polling...anti austerity...yes...but this one should imagine perhaps, heavily nuanced at times especially in consideration to changing gravity of matters. It is a cheap shot to the notion of 'democracy' that poor language results in the construction of a referendum equally devised in a way so as to manipulate people not for 'democratic' betterment, but in manipulating people.
No comments:
Post a Comment