Should Citizen Initiative be allowed?

[[email protected]]

That is should a petition signed by a minimum number of registered voters force a public vote on an issue?

If yes, should it be direct (a straight public vote) or indirect (goes to legislature first, then public vote if not enacted)?

[Charles Anthony]

No.

That forces the rest of the non-petition-signers to pay for something they do not want: a vote.

[jbg]

That is should a petition signed by a minimum number of registered voters force a public vote on an issue?

If yes, should it be direct (a straight public vote) or indirect (goes to legislature first, then public vote if not enacted)?

Initiative and referendum has a mixed record in the States. I suppose there are times that it's better to bring the people directly into the loop, but I have reservations.

The best that can be said for it is it does act as a check on politicians. In California and Massachusetts, during the 1970's for example, property values were rising sharply, taking property taxes with them. Initiative did give the taxpayers a method of stopping the merry-go-round. The problem, of course, is unintended consequences, since initiative and referendum is a sledgehammer device.

[geoffrey]

What would there be to prevent me, CA and jbg from going around and getting 51% of the votes in the country, to take all the wealth from the 49% that don't sign up with us?

[Charles Anthony]

What would there be to prevent me, CA and jbg from going around and getting 51% of the votes in the country, to take all the wealth from the 49% that don't sign up with us?

Barring a violent retaliation -- nothing.

I do not understand why you ask this question. How does a Citizen Initiative make a difference?

[Saturn]

That is should a petition signed by a minimum number of registered voters force a public vote on an issue?

If yes, should it be direct (a straight public vote) or indirect (goes to legislature first, then public vote if not enacted)?

Sure. As long as 50%+1 voters want to vote on an issue, I don't see why not.

[geoffrey]

What would there be to prevent me, CA and jbg from going around and getting 51% of the votes in the country, to take all the wealth from the 49% that don't sign up with us?

Barring a violent retaliation -- nothing.

I do not understand why you ask this question. How does a Citizen Initiative make a difference?

Umm, because it would be permitted in that situation. Having a House of Commons type setup, it does protect minority interests to some extent.

I see where your going to go from here. I likely agree with you in an idealistic sense. But it's not practical in reality.

[jbg]

What would there be to prevent me, CA and jbg from going around and getting 51% of the votes in the country, to take all the wealth from the 49% that don't sign up with us?

One, I'm not Canadian. That would likely limit the extent of my political activity. Two, I don't speak the language.

[Charles Anthony]

Umm, because it would be permitted in that situation. Having a House of Commons type setup, it does protect minority interests to some extent.

What would be permitted? The scenario you described (49% of population getting ripped) can happen with or without Citizen Initiatives anyway.

I see where your going to go from here.

That makes one of us because I still am confused about why you think we should have Citizen Initiatives.

Maybe my shoot-from-the-hip objection was not clear.

I have no objection to having things added to a ballot -- the paper is wasted anyway. However, the Opening Post suggests that we have a referenda if, for example, I, the loony anti-statesman, feel like putting forth neurotic pettitions every other week.

[Wilber]

I don't have a problem with adding things to the ballot during regular elections. The Charter would still protect minority rights. However it is unlikely that we could get past "the too much democracy is dangerous" Canadian mindset.

[[email protected]]

Good questions.

The reason CI is a good idea is that helps to ensure that the government+legislature are more or less staying on the citizen's agenda versus their own. If there is a possibility that citizens may start to organize or call for CI then that sure helps focus the energies of the government and the house.

In a properly functioning governance process CI would rarely if ever be used. It is much more useful as a threat. Our model is the Swiss experience; most CIs never make it the whole way since legislators are quick to jump on the bandwagon and pass it themselves.

Having said that it is very important that any CI process be well designed;

Tough financing laws to keep wealthy interests from taking advantage.

Tough audit rules on process, disclosure, signatures etc and to keep things 'open'

A fairly high initial signature threshold, say 10% of electors (which means tens of thousands of signatures)

Making the pass threshold 50%+1 of all electors not just of voters who turnout.

And of course with all legislation it will be subject to judicial review.

[Argus]

What would there be to prevent me, CA and jbg from going around and getting 51% of the votes in the country, to take all the wealth from the 49% that don't sign up with us?

If you could get 51% of people to vote for that then we'd have an NDP government, so you wouldn't need to worry. They'd be taking everyone's money.

[Argus]

That is should a petition signed by a minimum number of registered voters force a public vote on an issue?

If yes, should it be direct (a straight public vote) or indirect (goes to legislature first, then public vote if not enacted)?

I think there should be citizens initiatives. We've seen in the past how all the major parties can agree on something even though vast numbers of Canadians disagree. The Reform Party actually played to that. They moved in and started talking about the things ordinary Canadians were talking about but the rest of the politicians weren't. They talked about bilingualism, and whether it had gone too far, cutting back on immigration, capital punishment, crime and abortion. These were issues millions of ordinary Canadians wanted on the agenda, but the political elites were ignoring.

As the Reform morphed into the Alliance and then the Conservatives, of course, they stopped talking about these issues, or, to please the central Canada media, came out in support of them, even though most of their base was against them.

[scribblet]

I'd like to see some, for major issues, not every little thing. There's no reason why they couldn't be on the ballot at election time. Or, voters be given a separate ballot.

[geoffrey]

I see where your going to go from here.

That makes one of us because I still am confused about why you think we should have Citizen Initiatives.

I don't think we should, perhaps that's where the misunderstanding comes from.

[[email protected]]

I see where your going to go from here.

That makes one of us because I still am confused about why you think we should have Citizen Initiatives.

I don't think we should, perhaps that's where the misunderstanding comes from.

The reason CI is a good idea is that helps to ensure that the government+legislature are more or less staying on the citizen's agenda versus their own. If there is a possibility that citizens may start to organize or call for CI then that sure helps focus the energies of the government and the house.

In a properly functioning governance process CI would rarely if ever be used. It is much more useful as a threat. Our model is the Swiss experience; most CIs never make it the whole way since legislators are quick to jump on the bandwagon and pass it themselves.

Also CI encourages citizen engagement.