mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (10/27/84)
There is a difference between referenda and initiatives. In an initiative,
some group requires a vote to be held in the hope that something they
think is good will become law regardless of the views of their elected
representatives. In a referendum, the people vote on a question
which may perhaps have been set up through an initiative, but which also
may have been set up by the elected representatives.
The main problem with initiatives is that their effects are seldom thought
through beyond the immediate impact. Of course people will support
an initiative that at the same time declares (i) taxes will be reduced,
(ii) the civil service will be cut, (iii) government services will
be improved. Unfortunately, though the initiative would probably pass,
the effects would not occur: somebody broke the new law. Who is responsible?
Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction when an initiative results
in a conflict between human law and natural law? What happens when
the result is the opposite of what the original pressure group promised?
In a referendum initiated by our representatives, at least there has
been a period of consideration, both about the wording and about what
some of the side effects may be. You can complain all you want about
"stupid" politicians, but I have yet to meet one who was as stupid as
the average person. They have to deal with a huge number of issues,
and that's why they have staffs and why we pay for research staffs for
both the government and the opposition.
Referenda are appropriate on non-technical issues, where it is going
to be possible to implement the results whichever way the voting goes,
without damaging the objectives that the voters thought they were approving.
Referenda are not suitable on methods of achieving objectives. At the
moment the fashionable one is capital punishment for murder. The objective
is presumably reduced probability of being murdered; it is simply not
appropriate to ask people who do not understand the ins and outs of
the question to vote on methods of achieving this objective. The last
referendum was on independence for Quebec. That was an appropriate topic
for a referendum, since it defined the objective, not the means.
My vote: No on initiatives, occasionally yes on referenda.
My suggestion: Pay more for research staff for both government and
opposition, and enforce a rule requiring disclosure of the findings
of both sides, before approval by the political masters.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt