You bring up some good points, and I agree broadly with your points about direct citizen action.
But I think recent history has taught me that voting matters, and elections matter. People are getting what they voted for across the country, and I don't think there has been a point in recent history where that has been starker. A state like Colorado is often called "purple" because many issues are split down the middle there. So yeah, in some instances there's going to be a mismatch between the electorate and politicians. But at the same time, there's a big difference between e.g. California and Florida regarding how someone like me (LGBTQ) is perceived by the government. It's not direct citizen action holding the lions at bay in my state, it's the collective action of voting for representatives who don't pass legislation targeting us.
So I understand the lawyerly arguments here. You've done a great job explaining them.
Here in California we do hold what citizens want to a great degree of value. We've worked for a more direct democracy with citizen initiated constitutional amendments and more recently, citizen initiated redistricting.
With this in mind, you have to concede that at some point you're going to have a harder time arguing lawyerly points to an ever-growing statewide coalition.
Voting can be helpful, but not always. For a long time the voting majority in some places thought treating black people as lesser human beings was fair. In those cases, having the option to easily choose a different government would be useful.
In a way, having states in the US is that idea. E.g. moving from a deeply racist southern state during the height of equal but separate era to a more progressive state would have given you far better results than voting in terms of how you were treated by the local government.
For national issues, yeah, sure, I think you are correct. But for local and state issues? No way. Most of the issues you can get on a ballot are very local and have just as large, if not a larger effect on the cost of living of many people. For example, California has Prop13. This was a ballot initiative that caused your property taxes to be assessed ONLY at the sale of the property. In Arizona, it's every 5 years for reassessment. Prop13, arguably, hurts new home buyers much more than older settled owners as their taxes will be much higher, especially in SV.
In Colorado the Right-Left divide is real and is mostly a North (Boulder-Democrat) v. South (Colorado Spring, Republican), but pales in comparison to water rights. You want politics in Colorado, hell most big western states? It is ALL about water.
The issue with taking the stance that the voters imposed it on themselves is that voters, particularly of a specific city, are a group that is constantly cycling in and out members. I'm only recently of voting age; any regulation that was imposed more than 8 years ago, I had zero say in, let alone the knowledge and experience to have an informed opinion about it.
Beyond that, its hard to say the margins by which such a law passed. If a law passes by 51%, is it still difficult to find 'injustice' (This coming from a person in a state that passed a state constitutional ban against gay marriage by a similar margin)
This is a good point and largely the reason I vote. Many local initiatives have low enough turnout that you can actually make an impact. In a decent number of cases they also don't split directly along party lines, so your vote can matter regardless of the party split of your area. They also tend to be more pertinent to your community.
The problem is right now in SF we have a strong bike lobby and we vote and it still isn’t enough. The idea that voting with a block is a way to forward policy goals in 2020 is quaint TBH. As far as I can tell pretty much all successful political movements in the US (NRA/guns rights, marriage equality etc) have made the most material progress with both direct action (protests) and lawsuits despite both movements being electorally unpopular and having no electoral success at the time of their greatest achievements. Voting is a necessary but insufficient ingredient in policy change and has never been the silver bullet centrist democrats claim it to be. We need to add some legal adventureism to the mix to push the ball forward here both through expanding common law in friendly ways against car centric policies as well as just making it more costly to not have bike lanes than to construct them for the city and its residents.
We have the same rights as anyone in a civil society to try to effect political change in our favor, within the bounds of the law.
All that's being suggested here is that if people move from SV, or wherever, to Texas that they vote their conscience, and where they could reside so that vote could be the most effective. It isn't interference, it's participation.
Look at California, New York, or Texas. There's parts of those states that may disagree with the political leanings of the states policies. How are they supposed to get their own say in their community?
Yup, this definitely exists and misrepresentation is a real problem in all legislative contexts. We can only ask their citizens to care and make change (assuming elections are run legally). Being able to affect this change locally is very important and why these abatement decisions deserve to remain in their hands.
There are a couple of reasons I'm not a huge fan of plans like this. I have a friend running for state legislature under a similar goal (though only district residents would vote on his votes, not all state residents), and these are the two big points I made to him.
1. Most people aren't equipped to think about the kind of issues that come up with legislation. There are subtle interactions between laws, small economic provisions can have huge market effects, and many sentences end up meaning the exact opposite of what they seem to say. Ideally (for me, though you may disagree), the person getting voted in is equipped by experience, education, and general smarts. I want someone voting who is studying law, proposed and current, and making informed decisions. I don't always get that, but I'm more likely to get that with one person than with many.
2. Many Americans are terribly prejudiced. Pick any poll you have handy showing that more than 50% of Americans believe in something ridiculous and imagine them voting on a law related to that belief. Historically, perhaps, this vision is dimmer. It's a cultural issue, not an absolute one, so if we get better as a people, this argument against will become less important.
I do like when these kinds of ideas are brought up, however. Lots of interesting talk happens.
It's not just about the presidential election. Perhaps the greatest impact a voter has is on his local community/state. Here in California, our referendums have far-reaching consequences. Too much emphasis is placed on the presidential election.
And the proliferation of ballot questions in US states has been a rather mixed bag. And in many locales in the US, there are direct votes on many local matters.
…and this is another group of citizens organizing and advocating for a different outcome on future votes. It is democracy in action.
If you don’t like citizens organizing and advocating for democratic outcomes in the bay area, you can move to NY or Texas or Florida, where democratic decisions do not impact the bay area. (Do you see how the “just move away” rhetoric breaks down under a little bit of scrutiny?)
But I think recent history has taught me that voting matters, and elections matter. People are getting what they voted for across the country, and I don't think there has been a point in recent history where that has been starker. A state like Colorado is often called "purple" because many issues are split down the middle there. So yeah, in some instances there's going to be a mismatch between the electorate and politicians. But at the same time, there's a big difference between e.g. California and Florida regarding how someone like me (LGBTQ) is perceived by the government. It's not direct citizen action holding the lions at bay in my state, it's the collective action of voting for representatives who don't pass legislation targeting us.
reply