The Good people of Boston once had a tea party when they were being taxed without representation, we need to have one now also. We put our desires on the ballot, voted it into Law, and now a liberal judge cries unconstitutional!!!! What's wrong with this picture? Don't we still have a Reprentative form of government, I thought,not a system of kings and subjects. We are subjects to a runaway tax and spent bunch of beaurocrats that aren't even interested in what the people want. I'm ready to march on Olympia now, anyone with me??????

-- Craig Green (rainforestracing@techline.com), March 15, 2000

Answers

Well if this isn't one of the funnier posts over the last 24 hours.

I-695 was an effort to undermine representative democracy and replace it with direct democracy. Last I checked, the final say on whether I- 695 is constitutional will be up to a group of individuals elected by the people. The definition of a representative form of government.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), March 15, 2000.

"Allons enfants de la patrie, le jour de glorie, est arrive'"

Aux barricades, mes amis.

(Is it time to storm the Bastille? Well, maybe not just yet, but keep it in the back of your mind)

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), March 15, 2000.

I think it's LA jour zowie, although it's been a few decades since I took French. La Marsellais, right?

Where's Jeffey? He'd know.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), March 15, 2000.

Patrick--"I-695 was an effort to undermine representative democracy and replace it with direct democracy. "

Ya know, this statement is starting to bore me. It added one requirement to the political process--the necessity of referring tax and fee increases to the public. How does this replace representative democracy with direct democracy?

Put another way, is the ability to raise taxes the only measure of a representative democracy???

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), March 15, 2000.

The portion of I-695 that required voter approval for all tax increases was declared unconstitutional. The decision is being appealed and it might be reversed. But if the decision is upheld, should the people waste their time writing another hailstorm of posts whining about the decision?

Why don't you go about it the right way and get the constitution changed?

-- Gene (Gene@Gene.com), March 15, 2000.

"Why don't you go about it the right way and get the constitution changed?" Because the rules are set up so that one-third in either house can block constitutional changes, making it possible for the special interest groups to veto this by buying off a relative handful of the legislators. But by demonstrating through the initiative process that a majority support the issue, you can put the fear of God (or at least an enraged electorate) into the legislators, and pressure them to do the right thing, even if the initiative is defeated in court. At least that's how it's worked this time.

This was successful enough that it's worth repeating.

-- Mikey (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), March 16, 2000.

"Ya know, this statement is starting to bore me. It added one requirement to the political process--the necessity of referring tax and fee increases to the public. How does this replace representative democracy with direct democracy?"

I didn't say "replace" I said "undermine." The way the constitution, both US and state, are set up, we elect people to make decisions on how we want to be governed. If we don't like the decisions they make, we have both the ability to replace the people making the decisions and the decisions that they made. However, that ability is tempered by the requirement that a significant number of people must first disagree with the decision. As I said in another thread, this in essence gives our elected officials the benefit of the doubt.

We can debate the merits of this and suggested changes to it all we want, but the fact of the matter is that 695 would have made a fundamental shift in our government. No, it would not have replaced representative democracy, as there are several other parts to it, but it is undeniable that it would have undermined a portion of it.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), March 16, 2000.

From a previous post, "I-695 was an effort to undermine representative democracy and replace it with direct democracy."

From your current post, "I didn't say replace I said undermine."

Ummm, to be correct you said both. This is why I called bulls***. It's a classic logical fallacy--extending the results of one reasonable conclusion too generally for another.

If you cared about accuracy, you would've said something like the following:

Only in regards to new taxes and fees does I-695 attempt to undermine representative democracy and replace it with direct democracy.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), March 16, 2000.

Mikey,

"... by demonstrating through the initiative process that a majority support the issue, you can put the fear of God (or at least an enraged electorate) into the legislators, and pressure them to do the right thing...

What is your definition of "the right thing" relative to I-695? $30 tabs? Voter approval of tax increases? a direct democracy? Who's version of "the right thing" should we use? Yours? Mine? Craig's?

Some of the people posting here seem to want to start a revolution to get a direct democracy. Personally, I think that starting a revolution to obtain a direct democracy would be much more difficult than getting the state constitution amended. But if that is how Craig prefers to go about it, that's his choice. What is your choice going to be?

-- Gene (Gene@gene.com), March 16, 2000.

"What is your definition of "the right thing" relative to I-695? $30 tabs? Voter approval of tax increases? a direct democracy? Who's version of "the right thing" should we use? Yours? Mine? Craig's? "

Mine, of course ;-)

Mikey

-- (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), March 16, 2000.

Mikey,

I'm glad that you have a sense of humor about this. But you touched upon one of the problems that I have had with various people who have supported I-695. These people believe that I-695 had an unwritten message for government action.

Some believe that government should cut taxes. Some believe that government should eliminate waste. Some say privatize everything. The list goes on and on.

And now that I-695 passed, these people believe that their unwritten message is the WILL OF THE PEOPLE!

The are of the opinion that because the majority passed I-695, and that they voted for I-695, and that they have an unwritten message for government action, that the majority has the identical unwritten message for government action. Therefore they speak for the majority! Poor logic!

But we will see how all of this shakes out.

-- Gene (Gene@gene.com), March 17, 2000.

Gene,

You stated "The are of the opinion that because the majority passed I- 695, and that they voted for I-695, and that they have an unwritten message for government action, that the majority has the identical unwritten message for government action. Therefore they speak for the majority! Poor logic!"

The problem with generalizing is that it can be innaccurate. The above statement is innaccurate. I speak for myself. I do not speak for others. I really resent being told how "I" think. Just because I voted with the majority does not mean I now speak for the majority. This really is "poor logic!"

As for unwritten language for government action, I direct my support to those elected officials who want to legislate the provisions if I- 695. If they agree to side with the majority of the voters, this is in no way "unwritten language for government action". More "poor logic!"

You can certainly generalize anything you want. It does not mean you would be correct.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), March 17, 2000.

Marsha,

In your response, you did me a dis-service by not carrying over my previous statement indicating that the statement related to VARIOUS I-695 supporters, not ALL I-695 supporters. If it was not clear that the statement was pointed at certain individuals and not all I-695 supporters , then I am sorry for the confusion.

"As for unwritten language for government action, I direct my support to those elected officials who want to legislate the provisions of I- 695. If they agree to side with the majority of the voters, this is in no way "unwritten language for government action". More "poor logic!" "

By your statement, the elected officials that you support only need to implement $30 tabs and support a constitutional amendment for voter approval of tax/fee increases since those were the ONLY provisions in I-695. There is no "unwritten language for government action" to improve efficiency, kill "pork" projects, or to restore transportation project funding.

And yet there seems to be several people who have contributed to this forum have indicated that I-695 was more than just $30 tabs and voter approval of tax/fee increases. Many have indicated that I-695 was in fact a directive to the government to improve efficiency, kill pork, build roads, cut transit & ferries, etc. And since I-695 was passed by a simple majority, that all of these directives are now THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. And that is "poor logic".

-- Gene (Gene@gene.com), March 20, 2000.

Gene,

Actually, you SHOULD be addressing specifics with those individuals. When you make generalizations, one does not know "who" you are refering to.

And I am in favor of getting rid of pork, building roads and cutting transit/ferry "subsidies".

Also, the "unwritten language for government action" is not exclusive to this forum. The press has made more of it than anyone I see posting here. Also, the Legislators themselves have used I-695 to portray an unwritten language for government action. Seems like part of the process to me.

I am also in favor of the "focus" being placed on these issues, because of I-695. But to say that there is an unwritten language for government action is an attempt ignore the fact that I-695 had an impact, it must be dealt with and the dialog must occur. Cause and effect. What to cut and where to cut? These are for the legislature to decide. As far as I know, they do not take guidance from this forum. So anything we post here should have no impact.

Which is why I don't really understand your concern.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), March 20, 2000.

"These are for the legislature to decide. As far as I know, they do not take guidance from this forum"

But on the off chance that SENATOR TIM SHELDON does read this, hey, how come you don't answer emails from constituents? Even that nice Senator Benton responded to me and I don't live in his district!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), March 20, 2000.