Should the United States employ more referendums?

It seems to me and many other people who live up here in Canada that the use of referendums in the US is something that doesn't happen very often. In fact almost half of the states don't even have procedural laws regarding referendums.

So my question to you is, could referendums be used more often in the US to solve many of the national political conflicts there?

Example, instead of clawing at each others' throats and having Congressmen and Senators bicker and deadlock congress, why not just have a referendum on whether or not to keep Obamacare? Yes or no answer, no one can argue with the results of referendums.

Juiposa said:

It seems to me and many other people who live up here in Canada that the use of referendums in the US is something that doesn't happen very often. In fact almost half of the states don't even have procedural laws regarding referendums.

So my question to you is, could referendums be used more often in the US to solve many of the national political conflicts there?

Example, instead of clawing at each others' throats and having Congressmen and Senators bicker and deadlock congress, why not just have a referendum on whether or not to keep Obamacare? Yes or no answer, no one can argue with the results of referendums.

Click to expand...

Yeah, 'cause mob rule is always a great idea. :roll:

.

I would really like to see referendums and recalls done more in the US, but those in power would like block such actions legally if they start to be used.

Juiposa said:

It seems to me and many other people who live up here in Canada that the use of referendums in the US is something that doesn't happen very often. In fact almost half of the states don't even have procedural laws regarding referendums.

So my question to you is, could referendums be used more often in the US to solve many of the national political conflicts there?

Example, instead of clawing at each others' throats and having Congressmen and Senators bicker and deadlock congress, why not just have a referendum on whether or not to keep Obamacare? Yes or no answer, no one can argue with the results of referendums.

Click to expand...

I say yes.I also support ballot initiatives. But only with the following stipulations-

1.Votes for national Initiatives and referendums on the federal level must occur on the same day all across the country.

2. It must not violate the bill of rights. In other words they couldn't ban firearms, religion or anything else that blatantly violates the constitutional bill of rights.


3. If it something that may require additional funding it must include a way of funding it and if that funding requires a tax increase then that tax increase must affect everyone equally. In other words they could not pass a law that says free college for everyone and a extra 15% tax increase on the rich to fund it.

4.If its for the removable of a particular politician then on the constituents in that elected official's district can vote to remove that elected official from office and the vote for this can happen on any say since it only effects the politician's district. If it involves the removal of the president then this must occur on the same day all across the country.

The problem with referendums is that they are usually put there by one side or the other to excite their base and bring them out on election day (where they'll also vote for elected representatives). See the gay marriage referendums that keep happening -- the whole point is to get the Religious Right all worked up so they'll come out and vote (for Republicans).

Going back and recalling the President or Congress would be contrary to the Constitution. So that sort of thing would require a Constitutional Amendment.

TOJ said:

Yeah, 'cause mob rule is always a great idea. :roll:

.

Click to expand...

Mob rule? Elections to you is mob rule? Yes all you have to vote for are crooked idiots but I'd hardly call it mob rule. Instead of having the crooked idiots decide what they think is best for you, have a referendum and decide whats best for you yourself. I hardly see this as mob rule.

Juiposa said:

It seems to me and many other people who live up here in Canada that the use of referendums in the US is something that doesn't happen very often. In fact almost half of the states don't even have procedural laws regarding referendums.

So my question to you is, could referendums be used more often in the US to solve many of the national political conflicts there?

Example, instead of clawing at each others' throats and having Congressmen and Senators bicker and deadlock congress, why not just have a referendum on whether or not to keep Obamacare? Yes or no answer, no one can argue with the results of referendums.

Click to expand...

The idea sounds appealing, but it did not work for California and, in fact, is one their primary problems when it comes to budgetting. I am wary of this.

Probably the best application of this sort of thing is by using it to nullify laws, but not enact new ones.

megaprogman said:

The idea sounds appealing, but it did not work for California and, in fact, is one their primary problems when it comes to budgetting. I am wary of this.

Probably the best application of this sort of thing is by using it to nullify laws, but not enact new ones.

Click to expand...

This is why ballot initiatives and referendums should include a means of funding.

I support ballot initiatives on the State level but I don't want to see National ones because it would be circumventing the Constitution that makes us a Democratic Republic and not a straight Democracy, because they always fail, and it becomes mob rule.

Everyone knows that mobs often get it wrong, because they don't think for themselves.

Juiposa said:

It seems to me and many other people who live up here in Canada that the use of referendums in the US is something that doesn't happen very often. In fact almost half of the states don't even have procedural laws regarding referendums.

So my question to you is, could referendums be used more often in the US to solve many of the national political conflicts there?

Example, instead of clawing at each others' throats and having Congressmen and Senators bicker and deadlock congress, why not just have a referendum on whether or not to keep Obamacare? Yes or no answer, no one can argue with the results of referendums.

Click to expand...

No.
That's why we vote for other people, to hopefully filter the desires of the public.

Referendums, as we see them today are strictly for state issues.
For there to be a national referndum (on anything), the Constitution would have to be amended.

This is a represenative republic, not a democracy, for a reason.

I absolutely support national referendums. For the most part, California referendums have been bills that politicians would never approve, such as stopping legislative salaries when budgets aren't passed on time, etc. The first national referendum I'd like to see is campaign finance reform, where every major candidate gets the same amount of taxpayer money, cannot take private donations, cannot use personal money for campaigning, accounts for every nickle spent and returns the excess immediately after the election. Right now, we have basically the best government money can buy, because everyone in office has bought their way in, and the moment they take office fundraising for re-election takes precedence over doing the people's work.

Obviously, referendums would have to pass constitutional muster. But damn, we've got to do something. Look at the fools we've got running this country. Something isn't working, and I'm betting it's the fact that the only folks being served by government are the ones who can afford to pay the bribes.

Wonder what the executive branch would do if there was a referendum to make their retirement system and healthcare provision the same as for other federal employees and they had Medicare instead of their special healthcare plan in retirement? Currently they have a very liberal retirement system that pays as soon as they leave office regardless of age. The federal retirement cannot be drawn until a certain age and has a top limit on the amount that is substantially less than the amount the Presidents, Representatives and Senators receive.

DiAnna said:

I absolutely support national referendums. For the most part, California referendums have been bills that politicians would never approve, such as stopping legislative salaries when budgets aren't passed on time, etc.

Click to expand...

California's referenda play a big role in its ongoing fiscal problems though. The average voter making a split-second decision at the ballot box will probably vote for whatever feels like a good idea, without thinking through the consequences or opposing arguments. That's how California got a constitutional amendment requiring a supermajority to raise taxes (but not to raise spending). The inevitable result was a large, chronic budget deficit.

These problems are not limited to California, although the state's referenda provide the best example of the problems.

Ive been in discussions where its been argued that there is no need for Referendums because with our system you vote for people with your ideals...
I say nonesense...we get to vote for people that tell us whatever we want to hear to get elected, then they become what they really are...
I say we need referendums to give the people a voice when the politicians screw us and do what we do not want.