I hate the proposition system as a means of carrying out democracy. It's flawed flawed flawed for many many reasons that I won't go into, since there are plenty of political scientists and aspiring political scientists out there who can do a far better job of explaining. Since I think the system is so terrible, I've decided to stop giving my signature to get propositions on the ballot. I used to go ahead and sign since I figured that anything should be able to go up for a vote. Then I reconsidered after thinking about the dreadful impacts of Proposition 13 and that lame-ass proposition in 1999 (or so) when the citizens of the state of California outlawed the consumption of horse meat. COME ON!
So other than a proposition to end all propositions (Spice's plan circa 1998, although probably not allowed due to some line in some constitution somewhere), the only way I can think to stop this lame-ass approach to decision-making is to stop potential propositions from ever getting on the ballot. Wouldn't we then conclude that the system isn't working for us anymore and put the decision-making back in the hands of our representatives?
So I no longer sign the petitions. And I was feeling all fine about this until discourse with a signature collector today that went something like this:
collector: Could you please take a moment to sign the proposition petition? It will only take a second...
J.Po: I'm sorry. I really don't like the proposition system.
collector: I don't either, but I have to live.
Good point, collector (who gets paid per valid signature). So the question is: do I support the individual or do I hold strong in defiance of a crappy system?
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Oh, no contest - defy the system. Right at this moment I can't think of the proper analogy, but...here you go. You don't have to shop at Walmart just because they pay lots of poor people's salaries. No, that's kind of a bad analogy. Spice, help me out here.
From an economists perspective, a simple solution would be to refuse to sign the petition but give the collector a quarter (or however much they receive for each signature - it's probably not much). That way you win in both ways - you don't feel guilty about denying the collector their livelihood but you don't have to compromise your integrity.
I wouldn't sign it. There will be plenty of peeps who don't oppose the system (or don't understand it enough to oppose it, i.e. people like me the first two years I was in California) who will sign it & help the dude get signatures. And if he doesn't get the signatures, then maybe that damn proposition won't be on the ballot. Wouldn't that be wonderful?
I like TOWWAS's analogy!
Po, you bring up an interesting dilemma. I wouldn't sign it. By signing, you not only help get the proposition on the ballot, you also help sponsor the mega-bucks industry (lobbyists, ad agencies and, yes, poor signature collectors) that has sprung up around propositions in the California.
I like Grrr's idea, but am worried that the act of giving the collector money might be a bit awkward, unless he/she is a clearly down-on-their-luck type who is used to asking for and receiving money from strangers.
Along a similar line, here in Madison we have a 'bring the troops home' referendum coming up. When they were collecting signatures, I copped out of signing multiple times by claiming to not live in Madison. I should have, like Po, explained my opposition to the system. I plan to vote 'no' but wish I could vote 'no, not because I support the war (I don't) but because at this point we need to make sure Iraq is stable before withdrawal; and besides, this referendum is dumb and won't change anything.'
I thought about writing that in, but then a friend pointed out that by writing in rather than voting no, I was helping the yes side. Sucky.
Clearly they need a third option on the ballot:
Yes
No
No, and propositions are dumb.
Po, maybe you could use the proposition system to get that on the ballot!
Post a Comment