• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

National Referenda

Do you think a national referendum would be good for the United States?

  • Yes, congress could send it to the people, and they could invalidate a bill passed by congress

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, but it should only work in a case that the congress can send a referendum to the people

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, but only the people should be able to use it to invalidate a bill passed by congress

    Votes: 5 35.7%
  • No, none whatsoever. The current system is fine.

    Votes: 9 64.3%

  • Total voters
    14

irviding

New member
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
22
Reaction score
7
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
What do you think of instituting a nation-wide system of national referendum? We were debating this in my government class the other day and the professor, in favor of them, brought up an argument that they would be prudent if limited to only certain circumstances. For example, if the Congress wanted to put something up for referendum, they could as a means of showing the other party the public at large disagree. A good example of this might be the current Democratic house minority putting up for referendum a bill to raise taxes on the wealthy, which 60-70% (varies poll by poll) support. They could then tell the majority, hey look at what the majority of the country thinks, and you can honestly sit here and keep fighting for only 30%? Or if say, after the healthcare law passed, the minority republicans could put up for referendum a repeal of it. They could then have shown the Democrats that they are fighting for a bill a majority of the country oppose. Or even another criteria if enough signatures are provided, and each signature is verified, the people could invalidate a bill passed by the congress. No ballot initiatives though, that is not what this poll is about. For reference that would be the people drafting their own law to go before congress. A valid counter to the bill, however, is that the people are very easily influenced by things like TV advertisements, mailings, etc, and would not be able to decide on a referendum with their own true beliefs. It is also important to note things like the healthcare law, which was thousands of pages long. The average everyday American isn't going to take the time to read through it and see if he/she agrees with it or not. To put it simple, the average American is just not smart enough to make those decisions for the greater good (say a bill that would raise taxes to pay for a war, Americans might say no no no, don't you raise my taxes, or during the financial crisis, Americans would not have known that bailing out the financial institutions was absolutely necessary to keep the economy from completely going under) and it should be left out of their hands. And please don't get on my case for saying the average American isn't smart enough. I don't want to hear random drivel about how people in congress are bumbling idiots. Those on both sides of the aisle are very well educated in 99% of the cases and are above the average American in terms of intelligence, clearly.

Those above are just views I complied during the debate we had. I am on the fence... personally leaning towards no referenda.
 
Last edited:
What do you think of instituting a nation-wide system of national referendum?

We were debating this in my government class the other day and the professor, in favor of them, brought up an argument that they would be prudent if limited to only certain circumstances.

For example, if the Congress wanted to put something up for referendum, they could as a means of showing the other party the public at large disagree. A good example of this might be the current Democratic house minority putting up for referendum a bill to raise taxes on the wealthy, which 60-70% (varies poll by poll) support. They could then tell the majority, hey look at what the majority of the country thinks, and you can honestly sit here and keep fighting for only 30%?

Or if say, after the healthcare law passed, the minority republicans could put up for referendum a repeal of it. They could then have shown the Democrats that they are fighting for a bill a majority of the country oppose. Or even another criteria if enough signatures are provided, and each signature is verified, the people could invalidate a bill passed by the congress. No ballot initiatives though, that is not what this poll is about. For reference that would be the people drafting their own law to go before congress.

A valid counter to the bill, however, is that the people are very easily influenced by things like TV advertisements, mailings, etc, and would not be able to decide on a referendum with their own true beliefs. It is also important to note things like the healthcare law, which was thousands of pages long. The average everyday American isn't going to take the time to read through it and see if he/she agrees with it or not.

To put it simple, the average American is just not smart enough to make those decisions for the greater good (say a bill that would raise taxes to pay for a war, Americans might say no no no, don't you raise my taxes, or during the financial crisis, Americans would not have known that bailing out the financial institutions was absolutely necessary to keep the economy from completely going under) and it should be left out of their hands.

And please don't get on my case for saying the average American isn't smart enough. I don't want to hear random drivel about how people in congress are bumbling idiots. Those on both sides of the aisle are very well educated in 99% of the cases and are above the average American in terms of intelligence, clearly.

Those above are just views I complied during the debate we had. I am on the fence... personally leaning towards no referenda.

I broke your post us so I could read it with ease - Enter is your friend, do not be afraid of the Enter :)

Bills are put through a lengthy appeals and argument process before a vote during which time they're mulled over - summarized - mulled over some more . . . each side has it's chance to make changes and arguments. Just because they failed to pass or sink it doesn't mean they should have the power to recall on the entire process.

They can bitch 'til the day they die if they'd like - and they already do take our 'national average citizen doesn't support this tax hike' to the podium.

I can't quite speak for the 'average Amercian' - because, since I've read the HC bill (twice) I think that makes me above average - though note my level of arrogance is quite the national average - win some, lose some :)

But: with all this that you've written - you still didn't explain what exact type of referendum process is being discussed - Just calling it a 'referendum' is somewhat of a vague term.

However - taking the default definition of a referendum and that it would require an Amendment to the Constitution solely for the purpose of the sore loser causing a stink . . . no, I don't see the need. Especially when most bills don't even leave Committee and we have a series of checks and balances to also bring into play (veto power, the judiciary . . . . and at any time someone can propose a new bill that strikes down an old one)
 
no vote...
I do not think our people are up to this task....proven by the lack of regular voting.
Lets have a better people first.
 
I would support national voter initiatives. Politicians can not be trusted to do the right thing. It should have the following stipulations in order to prevent abuse-

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, although technically this would not be a federal voter initiatives . If it involves the removal of the president then this must occur on the same day all across the country.

5.Federal ballot initiatives must be decided with the Electoral College System.This is so people in densely populated cities are deciding laws for the rest of the country.

6.Federal ballot initiative should require a 2/3 majority in order to pass.

7.Ballot initiatives must be federal level not state level, for example we couldn't a law that requires Arkansas to build a park or to ban trans fat.
 
none, don't need any more power to the mob rule, most people are too easily influenced so you arn't actually getting an honest picture of whats best for the country or what actually people want.
 
What do you think ....
I think you need to find a better school; one that teaches better writing style (see Aunt Spiker's post) and doesn't have idiot professors teaching government.

.
 
I think you need to find a better school; one that teaches better writing style (see Aunt Spiker's post) and doesn't have idiot professors teaching government.

.

Don't get lost while you're looking in the jungle for the ruby :)
 
I think the example of California has forever poisoned the concept of voter referenda to me. California's government is a trianwreck, largely because the voters have straitjacketed the legislature through voter referenda which sound good in soundbite form, but are disasters if one thinks about the ramifications for more than the thirty seconds they are in the voting booth. I would not want such a system replicated on the federal level.
 
Last edited:
I think the example of California has forever poisoned the concept of voter referenda to me. California's government is a trianwreck, largely because the voters have straitjacketed the legislature through voter referenda which sound good in soundbite form, but are disasters if one thinks about the ramifications for more than the thirty seconds they are in the voting booth. I would not want such a system replicated on the federal level.

Yes - I like less wishy-washy status. "it's passed - not vetoed - now it's law. . . . let's work with that"

Rather than this suggested iffy time of "Well it's passed - but will it be recalled within the next 60 days?! Dun dun dun" sort of drama hanging about.
 
What do you think of instituting a nation-wide system of national referendum? We were debating this in my government class the other day and the professor, in favor of them, brought up an argument that they would be prudent if limited to only certain circumstances. For example, if the Congress wanted to put something up for referendum, they could as a means of showing the other party the public at large disagree. A good example of this might be the current Democratic house minority putting up for referendum a bill to raise taxes on the wealthy, which 60-70% (varies poll by poll) support. They could then tell the majority, hey look at what the majority of the country thinks, and you can honestly sit here and keep fighting for only 30%? Or if say, after the healthcare law passed, the minority republicans could put up for referendum a repeal of it. They could then have shown the Democrats that they are fighting for a bill a majority of the country oppose. Or even another criteria if enough signatures are provided, and each signature is verified, the people could invalidate a bill passed by the congress. No ballot initiatives though, that is not what this poll is about. For reference that would be the people drafting their own law to go before congress. A valid counter to the bill, however, is that the people are very easily influenced by things like TV advertisements, mailings, etc, and would not be able to decide on a referendum with their own true beliefs. It is also important to note things like the healthcare law, which was thousands of pages long. The average everyday American isn't going to take the time to read through it and see if he/she agrees with it or not. To put it simple, the average American is just not smart enough to make those decisions for the greater good (say a bill that would raise taxes to pay for a war, Americans might say no no no, don't you raise my taxes, or during the financial crisis, Americans would not have known that bailing out the financial institutions was absolutely necessary to keep the economy from completely going under) and it should be left out of their hands. And please don't get on my case for saying the average American isn't smart enough. I don't want to hear random drivel about how people in congress are bumbling idiots. Those on both sides of the aisle are very well educated in 99% of the cases and are above the average American in terms of intelligence, clearly.

Those above are just views I complied during the debate we had. I am on the fence... personally leaning towards no referenda.
I sense that your professor likes the idea because he thinks that he can get what he wants passed that way. Too often people fail to realize that people with differing opinions get to use the same process as well.

Also, not to harp on it, but... paragraphs are your friend. A big blob of text is much harder to understand.


I think the example of California has forever poisoned the concept of voter referenda to me. California's government is a trianwreck, largely because the voters have straitjacketed the legislature through voter referenda which sound good in soundbite form, but are disasters if one thinks about the ramifications for more than the thirty seconds they are in the voting booth. I would not want such a system replicated on the federal level.
You said everything I was going to say. California politics is indeed a train wreck, and a HUGE reason why is referendum system.
 
I'm not sure how it would even work. Elections are governed by the states, and every state has different rules about how such a thing could even get on the ballot. So before anything like this could even happen, you'd have to amend the Constitution to make it possible.
 
What do you think of instituting a nation-wide system of national referendum? We were debating this in my government class the other day and the professor, in favor of them, brought up an argument that they would be prudent if limited to only certain circumstances. For example, if the Congress wanted to put something up for referendum, they could as a means of showing the other party the public at large disagree. A good example of this might be the current Democratic house minority putting up for referendum a bill to raise taxes on the wealthy, which 60-70% (varies poll by poll) support. They could then tell the majority, hey look at what the majority of the country thinks, and you can honestly sit here and keep fighting for only 30%? Or if say, after the healthcare law passed, the minority republicans could put up for referendum a repeal of it. They could then have shown the Democrats that they are fighting for a bill a majority of the country oppose. Or even another criteria if enough signatures are provided, and each signature is verified, the people could invalidate a bill passed by the congress. No ballot initiatives though, that is not what this poll is about. For reference that would be the people drafting their own law to go before congress. A valid counter to the bill, however, is that the people are very easily influenced by things like TV advertisements, mailings, etc, and would not be able to decide on a referendum with their own true beliefs. It is also important to note things like the healthcare law, which was thousands of pages long. The average everyday American isn't going to take the time to read through it and see if he/she agrees with it or not. To put it simple, the average American is just not smart enough to make those decisions for the greater good (say a bill that would raise taxes to pay for a war, Americans might say no no no, don't you raise my taxes, or during the financial crisis, Americans would not have known that bailing out the financial institutions was absolutely necessary to keep the economy from completely going under) and it should be left out of their hands. And please don't get on my case for saying the average American isn't smart enough. I don't want to hear random drivel about how people in congress are bumbling idiots. Those on both sides of the aisle are very well educated in 99% of the cases and are above the average American in terms of intelligence, clearly.

Those above are just views I complied during the debate we had. I am on the fence... personally leaning towards no referenda.

Personally, I think it is a 10th amendment right that people be allowed to influence legislation via referenda.
 
I absolutely believe we should have a national referendum system. When congress gives itself a fat raise and giant perks, the people can slap them soundly about the head and shoulders whilst taking it away from them. When congress passes laws making it easier for PACs to anonymously foot the bill for congressional ads and campaign expenses, the people can veto it. When congress passes laws requiring less scrutiny on the use of funds from campaign warchests, and rolling those funds into their own pockets, the people can repeal the law and substitute one that states that any campaign contributions not used in the current campaign must be turned into the US government's general fund.

These ****ers don't go to congress to serve us. They go to congress to help themselves to power and money. Time we took our power as a people back from these lying, thieving dickheads.
 
I absolutely believe we should have a national referendum system. When congress gives itself a fat raise and giant perks, the people can slap them soundly about the head and shoulders whilst taking it away from them. When congress passes laws making it easier for PACs to anonymously foot the bill for congressional ads and campaign expenses, the people can veto it. When congress passes laws requiring less scrutiny on the use of funds from campaign warchests, and rolling those funds into their own pockets, the people can repeal the law and substitute one that states that any campaign contributions not used in the current campaign must be turned into the US government's general fund.



These ****ers don't go to congress to serve us. They go to congress to help themselves to power and money. Time we took our power as a people back from these lying, thieving dickheads.



I agree, I agree, I agree...
 
I think the example of California has forever poisoned the concept of voter referenda to me. California's government is a trianwreck, largely because the voters have straitjacketed the legislature through voter referenda which sound good in soundbite form, but are disasters if one thinks about the ramifications for more than the thirty seconds they are in the voting booth. I would not want such a system replicated on the federal level.

California is an example why there must be stipulations in place if referendums are allowed, not an example of referendums being a bad idea.
 
nah, I don't support national referenda... I support the US constitution.

a national referendum is a radical departure from our most basic government system.

the Constitution provides that all legislative powers reside in Congress... it provides the people a voice in legislation by way of the House of Representatives.( technically, thanks to the 17th amendment, both houses are voices of the people)


a national referendum nullifies the legitimacy of those institutions.

in addition, I think direct democracy is definitely more evil than what we have now... tyranny of the majority is most certainly the outcome of allowing national referenda.
the very fastest way for this country to implode is to allow direct democracy to take hold.
 
A national referenda system isn't direct democracy. For example, there would probably be stringent rules and the difficulty of adhering to all of them would be so arduous that only matters of significance by the majority of voters could ever make the cut. One thing could be that 2/3 of a state's registered voters be required for that state to ratify a specific referendum, and probably 2/3 of the states could be required to ratify it in order to hold the referendum vote nationally.

What we have isn't working. Congress does not function as the founding fathers envisioned. Congress is a money-based institution where laws are written based on the wishes of the highest bidder. The people have no say any more, and look what it has wrought. If there was a way for the people to legally and legitimately take back that power by controlling the most egregious abuses of congressional self-servitude, then it would be a sobering reminder of who was really supposed to be in charge of this country.
 
Last edited:
Well - we're not a direct democracy, anyway . .. we're a representative democracy - like it means anything these days. More and more people disprove of this platform we're built on.
 
I wrote it all from my phone give me a break lol
 
yes, we should allow national referendums.

but they should require a super-majority of 60% to pass.
 
I wrote it all from my phone give me a break lol

Holy **** - wow - you wrote all of that form your phone and that's all you have to say in response?

Sweet heavens! :D
 
A national referenda system isn't direct democracy. For example, there would probably be stringent rules and the difficulty of adhering to all of them would be so arduous that only matters of significance by the majority of voters could ever make the cut. One thing could be that 2/3 of a state's registered voters be required for that state to ratify a specific referendum, and probably 2/3 of the states could be required to ratify it in order to hold the referendum vote nationally.

What we have isn't working. Congress does not function as the founding fathers envisioned. Congress is a money-based institution where laws are written based on the wishes of the highest bidder. The people have no say any more, and look what it has wrought. If there was a way for the people to legally and legitimately take back that power by controlling the most egregious abuses of congressional self-servitude, then it would be a sobering reminder of who was really supposed to be in charge of this country.

a national referendum is direct democracy.. it cannot be accurately described in any other way.

what we have works.... it has problems for sure.... but those problems are based in the people who are in office, not the system itself.
the system is a good one, if we only had the courage to follow it, the intellect to understand it, and the integrity not to undermine it.

national referendums, at this point, are illegal, unconstitutional,and impracticable
it will be necessary to change the very fundamental structure of our government to allow them.
 
No, we already have a national referendum each election. We just need to remove money from the election process and have more people doing their civic duty to vote.

We get the government we deserve IMO.
 
Last edited:
No, we already have a national referendum each election. We just need to remove money from the election process and have more people doing their civic duty to vote.

Why do we need to remove money from the process? We already have an election, how does money change that?
 
Ironic that we're using a poll to determine this question.
 
Back
Top Bottom