Thad wrote:The problem, as I see it, is that you're presupposing wise, knowledgeable, and well-meaning elected officials. That's a worthy goal, but I'm not sure it's an attainable one. I think some level of trust of government is necessary, but some level of suspicion is, too.
Not "presupposing" of course... "expecting" I'll accept though. I think it's a reasonable expectation, and also reasonable to expect a working system of checks and balances to enforce that.
If the same people who voted to elect Doug Ducey also voted to increase the minimum wage, and Doug Ducey opposes a minimum wage increase, does that mean that the voters picked Ducey because they defer to his judgement on the subject, or does it mean that they voted on a referendum specifically because, while they like Ducey better than DuVal as a whole, they disagree with him on the minimum wage?
Yes and also yes. I don't see those two possibilities as exclusive, necessarily.
I do recognize that the possibilities are exclusive under the current system of "the public demands a thing, the legislature tells the public to fuck off, and that's the end of the story." Ideally, I would see the conversation run like this:
PUBLIC: We want a minimum wage increase and have voted for a (non-binding) referendum in favor of it.
DUCEY, ET. AL.: In my position as Governor (et. al.) I cannot support a minimum wage increase. I will not honor this referendum and urge the public not to pursue further action.
PUBLIC: [If not in agreement.] We still want a minimum wage increase and have voted for a (binding) initiative in favor of it.
DUCEY, ET CETERA: Then it's out of our hands and we have done our jobs to the best of our ability as we see fit.
"Give the public veto power over the legislature" might be a pretty hard sell but it's something I think we need at this point in our push towards a More Perfect Union.
But I also don't see it as much of a betrayal -- I think Brexit really is a foregone conclusion at this point, that a last-minute attempt by the minority parties to scuttle it won't accomplish anything except possibly generating even more economic uncertainty, and that there will be other, better hills to die on if they save their political capital.
Given the public reaction that I've seen, if their purpose was to conserve their political capital, they have fucked it up.
I mean, I'd probably vote No if I were an elected official. But that's one of many reasons I'll never hold political office.
The President of the United States is a serial sexual molester, and I mean, not even a meme one on a message board or anything. He's my IRC character in real life. If you don't think you can do better than my IRC character, you've got a serious clinical case of self-loathing going on.
: Mention something from KPCC or Rachel Maddow
: Go on about Homeworld for X posts
