This may be dumb but when do we vote on this?

-- Steve (v-stever@microsoft.com), September 16, 1999

Answers

Steve:

We vote on General Election Day, which is Nov. 2, 1999.

-- A.C. Johnson (ajohnson@thefuture.net), September 16, 1999.

And Steve.....remember to Vote Yes on I-695!!!!!!!!!

-- caroline morgan (celtic266@aol.com), September 16, 1999.

I recommend you carefully consider thinking about how I-695 changes the tax structure, this is the main long term effect of the inititiave and is often under emphasized by the authors, here and anti-695 boards too.

Will direct democracy work as a means of levying taxes? Or instead will dishonest politicians and initiative authors use short term pay offs to pass log term boondoggles off on the voters?

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), September 18, 1999.

" Will direct democracy work as a means of levying taxes? Or instead will dishonest politicians and initiative authors use short term pay offs to pass log term boondoggles off on the voters? "

Given that it's a democracy, I guess the voters will do what the voters want. Are you seriously contending that giving the voters direct control over levies and taxes will make them more amenable to manipulation by the politicians than the current status when these issues can be decided directly by the politicians? And just how much contempt do you have for these voters? If you truly believe they are that ignorant/stupid/gullible, do you think we ought to return to literacy tests to protect democracy from the uneducated, or poll taxes to protect democracy from those who have shown they don't know how to handle finances, or wait, maybe we ought to just allow the college educated to vote, and then only certain schools, like Evergreen State............. Gosh Billy, maybe no one should be allowed to vote until they have successfully completed a course in a re-education center! Do you REALLY BELIEVE THE BS YOU'RE SPREADING, or are these merely desperate attempts to try to confuse people in the hope that, being confused, they'll then vote against I-695. I certainly hope the latter is the case. I would not want to think that even someone whose political beliefs I disagree with would have to go through life with such a woefully inadequate understanding of logic.

-- craigcarson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 19, 1999.

Craig:

The difference between a direct democracy, and a representative demcracy, is a significant change in how government operates. The national constitution and the state constitution are structured to provide for representative democracy for some good reasons. The suggestion that people think about the consequences of such a change with regard to any funding issues, is not equivalent to advocating new (or old) restrictions on who should vote. Why does every comment critical to the initiative, result in a personal attack?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 19, 1999.

" Will direct democracy work as a means of levying taxes? Or instead will dishonest politicians and initiative authors use short term pay offs to pass log term boondoggles off on the voters?"

Like the federal and state appropriations bills, budget, and tax codes aren't a who's who of special interest legislation. Like there wasn't corporate welfare up the ying yang, pay offs to unions, PACs, and corporations for their political dollars. Like Archer Daniels Midland and the Milk Fund and all the others haven't been swilling at the public trough for decades, with the bought and paid for votes of our elected representatives. Hell, give the people a chance for a while. They could hardly do worse.

Yo - Billy

Do you think you are the only one that can cut and paste from one thread to the next?

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 19, 1999.

d-

"Why does every comment critical to the initiative, result in a personal attack?"

If you have been following my posts, it obviously doesn't. However this particular quote

" Will direct democracy work as a means of levying taxes? Or instead will dishonest politicians and initiative authors use short term pay offs to pass log term boondoggles off on the voters? "

is inherently illogical in that it infers that dishonest politicians who can now affect these issues directly will somehow have more power to affect these issues (rather than less) once these issues are subject to popular vote. This is illogical. It further implies that after I-695 authors of initiatives will have different options than they do now, which is incorrect. Additionally, Billy's postings display, IMHO, a lack of respect for the common voter that borders on contempt that I frankly find somewhat frightening, hence the sarcasm. Lastly, Billy has posted the same stuff repetitively on several threads, notwithstanding that there were perfectly reasonable and valid rebuttals (besides mine) to which he did not reply, leading me to believe this is just propogandizing on his part, not an honest attempt at meaningful dialogue. If he's just going to hang up propaganda and move on, he ought to be criticized, he's earned it.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 19, 1999.

Craig:

Ok, I have not followed his specific comments. What I agree with in his post, is that the initiative process is easier to manipulate than the legislative process. As an example, the poorly drafted wording of I-695 would not have survived committee review, public comment at hearings before the house and senate committees, debate and action on the floor or each house, and a final review and approval by the Governor. Those problems with the initiative would have been identified and corrected, so at least it would clearly do what it is intended to do. In addition, I have said before that the ballot title is a deception. The $30 license tabs is a diversion, when the real issue is the change in the nature of the governmental processes for funding issues by the voter approval requirement on any increase in fee or charge by government. If I-695 is approved, as I believe it will be, for the wrong reasons; it is a prime example of the use of the initiative process to pass what could not survive a thorough conscientious evaluation by reasonable and informed people.

If we change the nature of government, in exchange for $30 license tabs, what is next? Would you buy making the Secretary of Transportation a lifetime appointment for a 5 cent reduction in the gas tax? I think we could construct an initiative title to do that. Maddjak and Westin would probably agree, since their primary goal is to keep their money; but is a terrible way to make important decisions.

If you think that indicates a lack of respect, or even contempt, for the voters; read the Federalist Papers, and some of the founders as they debated how to structure a new government. Representative government was selected as a means to protect the society from the tyrany of the majority. What is right, is not always what is popular. I know representative democracy works. I have doubts about direct democracy.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 19, 1999.

d-

"Representative government was selected as a means to protect the society from the tyrany of the majority. " I agree that this would be bad. But a tyranny of the minority is even worse.

Do you believe perhaps that we should require super majorities (60- 70% yes votes) for initiatives? How about for tax levys? I also read the Federalist papers. If you want to read something that is anti-big government, the Federalist Papers are certainly that. The government is best which governs least.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 20, 1999.

Craig:

I guess I am conservative enough to want to stick with the system that has worked. This initiative makes a big change, that is still not being discussed much in the media. As I stated before, the proponents of change have the burdon to prove the change is at least as good as what we have now.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 20, 1999.

"As I stated before, the proponents of change have the burdon (sic) to prove the change is at least as good as what we have now. "

Like many things (urban renewal comes to mind), the ultimate result probably won't be known until we give it a try. No one has so clear a crystal ball as to know ahead of time what the result will be. Would the Democrats have elected Clinton had they known it would cost them the Congress 2 years later?

In any event, if it doesn't work, it can always be changed back. That's the neat thing about a democracy.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 20, 1999.

Craig writes:

"In any event, if it doesn't work, it can always be changed back. That's the neat thing about a democracy."

That's also not a very smart way to run a state. Change shouldn't be made just for change's sake.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 20, 1999.

"That's also not a very smart way to run a state. Change shouldn't be made just for change's sake"

I'm not sure you'll find general agreement on that. Why do you think we have term limits on the Governor?

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 20, 1999.

dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 19, 1999. wrote:

"The difference between a direct democracy, and a representative demcracy, is a significant change in how government operates. The national constitution and the state constitution are structured to provide for representative democracy for some good reasons."

Yes, and those good reasons are (at least in the case of the national constitution ) primarily in the areas of civil RIGHTS. The protection of 'rights' of the citizen. Illegal search and siezure, censorship, right to bear arms, etc. etc. However, those representatives who apply taxation on a dollar for dollar level have abused their representation. That's why taxation is such an important part of govt. in these latter days. They can't illegally search us, they can't shut us up, and, although they've been trying really, reeeaaallly hard, they can't take away the means to defend ourselves. However, they have found that they can tax. Oh, and tax us they do. And tax, and tax, and tax, tax tax tax tax tax tax. And then, just when you think they've raised taxes about as high as they can, they tax us a little more. Most modern industrialized govt's don't oppress with the gun, they oppress with the balance sheet. Also remember that those constitutions, again, especially the national one, allow for all kinds of ways for the people to strike back if they reach their 'fed up' level. The founding documents of this country say that it is not only our right, but our DUTY to rise up and retake power from those who abuse it. This is tax revolt. Plain and simple. This isn't just some 'irresponsible referendum'. This is socio-democratic mortar shell being fired by noneother than "the people". And gov't is afraid. Very, very afraid. As they well should be. And, those people who make their livings off the backs of taxpayer production are afraid. Very, very afraid. As well they should be.

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), September 26, 1999.

Paul:

Actually, it had more to do with selecting the best and brightest to do what most people will not take the time and trouble to do. Study the issues and make a careful judgement. Many people dispute the "best and brightest" part, but they can always run for office. Some of our greasest politicians were reluctant office holders, who agreed to serve as a civic responsibility.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 26, 1999.