[conspire] Ballot Analysis and the 7/8 Clause

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Paul Zander (paulz at ieee.org):

> I didn't agree with Rick on several issues, but prior to his email, I
> had reached the same conclusion about the initiative process.   IMO,
> the default vote on all propositions should be NO.   Then consider if
> there is a compelling reason for voting YES.

Just after posting my recent comment that the voter's first concern 
about a state ballot proposition should be 'Why was this punted to the
voters?', I was musing on other long-term lessons.

A big one is:  Who are _behind_ this, and what are they hoping to get?
The ballot measures have a history and context; those are always
enlightening, and frequently key to telling you what the measure is
_really_ all about.  A typical state measure is presented with a simple
accompanying story that to some degree (and sometimes almost entirely)
is quite wrong, and misleading.  Some effort is typically required to
find where the bodies are buried.

It's a short trip from that pondering to the epiphany that some of the
measures _shouldn't_ have been punted to the voters -- who ought to reject
the simple and seductive narrative that they're being valued for their
Solomonic wisdom and have been chosen to act for the Good of All.  Which
is of course delusional.  The voters are typically valued for being a
court of last resort persuadable by expensive lying, e.g., the
approximately $200 million spent conning the voters about Prop. 22.

The realisation that voter initiatives tie our Legislature's hands on
those subjects gives further weight to that concern.  IMO, California
voters in the '80s and '90s got subtly put into the position of
micromanaging the Legislature and courts (e.g., lots of restrictive
measures starting with Jarvis-Gann, Three Strikes, etc.), which to no
surprise worked very badly.  IMO, we should learn from that and
carefully avoid overriding the lawmakers and courts without extreme
need -- and thereby get conned less often.