the Forum.

Vertical Divider

Here we will get into more of the details of this effort.   Please read on if you want to know more.

(Email us your questions or challenges; we welcome them and will respond as best we can.)

Let the discussion begin . . .

Questions:

Can we really rely on “the people” to make good voting decisions? 
 
Are they smart enough and/or committed enough to make good choices?

Answer:

These are the important questions that must be addressed and answered with regard to our proposed plan.  Let us attempt to do that now.

We believe that “regular” people can, in fact, make good voting decisions—and likely even better decisions—than can representatives, provided that they are given the information they need to vote in a format that is easy for them to understand and evaluate.

Here’s what we voters need to make good voting decisions:

1. An emphasis on “localized” voting

As much voting as possible should be done at the lowest level of government possible, that is, the city, county, or state level, and not at the federal level.
With localized voting, parties and voters can more easily see how various policies and laws actually play out in among various cities, counties, and states.  Voters will then be able to compare and vote for things that are working and against things that aren’t working.  Think of it as a form of “comparison shopping.”

2. Easy-to-understand voting proposals and procedures

To help voters who want to evaluate proposals themselves, the following steps would be taken to make understanding the issues involved as simple and easy as possible for everyone:

• Voters would be asked to address one issue at a time. Currently, many proposals (referendums/initiatives) are worded such that multiple issues involving complex trade-offs are embedded within a single proposal. This requires the voter to consider two or more ideas within a single item and often causes confusion and uncertainty.  Our proposed change to the process would avoid this problem. Each proposal would call for an up or down vote on only one issue.

 

• The description of what is being voted upon would be prepared by independent communications experts, not elected officials (as is often the case now for example in California).  Elected officials have a bias and will play with words to promote their own position.  Words matter.  Communications experts would keep explanations as simple to understand as possible and avoid confusing jargon.

 

• Voting on initiatives and referendums would take place separately from elections of officials.  For good voting results, it’s important not to overwhelm voters and allow them to focus on the issues.  Separating “votes” on issues from “elections” of officials will help make that happen.

 
Here’s an example of a recent California ballot.Wow, this is confusing or what!
 

Question:

What about the concern for “tyranny of the majority” where the majority of voters can impose their will on a smaller group, or minority, of people?

Answer:

This was a famous concern of our founders.

The possibility of tyranny of the majority would be addressed in the following ways.

1. As much as possible voting would be localized and federal decision making minimized. Consequently, the majority’s power is held in check by the knowing that voters can “vote with their feet” and move away.

2. Where federal votes are needed, the criteria for determining voter approval can be modified to ensure that widespread support exists for something before it becomes law.

For example, votes could require a “double majority.”  So for a law to pass it would need the majority of the popular vote and a majority of the states to approve it.  Such a requirement betters assures both depth and breadth of support for a given law or action.  Our good friend to the north, Canada, uses this approach with important referendums, as do other countries.  We can too!

---

WHO IS BEHIND THIS EFFORT

ABOUT REFERENDUMS AND Initiatives

SIGNS OF WEAK VOTING POWERS

THE FORUM

Additional Reading

CONTACT US