Direct Democracy in California - Essay Example

Direct Democracy in California 25th, September, The progressive era was a period in the United s when social activism and political reform had flourished generally between 1890 and 1920. The people had developed social unrest causing political mayhem due to the injustice carried out by the governments. The main reason of the progressive era was to cleanse the government through eliminating from office corrupt politicians and bosses. Moreover, during this era, women were not allowed to vote and thus there they were not allowed to make public decisions. In addition, the progressive era aimed at achieving efficiency in all sectors, both private and public by identifying the traditional ways, which needed to be modernized. Moreover, this era advocated for scientific approaches to decision making as well as medical and engineering solutions. During this period, major reforms were carried out in public education, finance, insurance, medicine, industry, railroads, churches, local government, and many other areas. In order for the people to achieve their objective, various processes were taken into consideration, which gave the need for direct democracy. Direct democracy is a form of democracy that allows people to vote on certain policies directly without engaging their representatives. This process entails passing decisions on various subjects mainly on executive decisions, and formulating new laws directly without consulting the Congress. There are two forms of democracy known as participatory democracy or deliberative democracy. California is one of the first states to implement and use direct democracy. However, many countries in the world use representative democracy whereby they are represented by the Congress or the House of Commons. In direct democracy, it does not replace but instead, it complements the Congress form of democracy. It only allows the popular and most important decision as to be decided by the public through processes such as the referendum. However, the Congress, government, and local administration make most of the other decisions. Moreover, direct democracy gives independence to the judiciary and the executive arms of the government. It is based on the realistic option that the people are the best suited to handle the situations affecting them. It I s based on delegation and not direct representation. In this case, delegates are elected to make decisions on certain subject matter and cannot change previous decisions made by an assembly of the people. However, the delegates themselves can be immediately recalled by their electorate and dismissed from their mandate if they do not carry out the specific function allocated to them. California has seen tremendous changes since it accepted the use of direct democracy especially between 2002 and 2007. During this period, California witnessed a historic recall of the governor and other elected representatives due to the enormously huge budget deficit. The opinions raised by the people prompted them to call for direct democracy where they would participate in decision-making. The spread of direct democracy has been propelled by the availability of communication technology that allows the sharing of ideas, opinions, and gives citizens’ unparalleled access to information and heightened the desire to take part directly in policy decisions. For California to call for a direct democracy, a huge percentage of its population comprising about 70 per cent we agitated by the way the state was run with a majority even in favor of federal initiatives. According to a survey done in California, it shows that a large majority of the Californians would like to have to have a more democratic state that is responsible for making laws and public policies through such initiatives. There are certain pros and cons associated with direct democracy as discussed below. One of the greatest advantage brought about by direct democracy is that all eligible citizens can contribute directly to the decision making body of the country. Moreover, there are fewer cases of distinct interests to directly influence for every decision maker. This means that the interest of the majority will be adequately catered for. Moreover, it eliminates any element of corruption since all the parties will be exposed and aware of what is happening. Another benefit that people derive from direct democracy is that sovereignty is exercised directly by the citizens themselves. This means that the citizens are at liberty to make decisions that favors them in comparison to a representative democracy where decisions are made on behalf of the citizens. In addition, the citizens participate in answering the premeditated process of opinion formation. This means that all citizens will be consulted for their opinions concerning the issue. For instance, this can be done through a referendum or an election. However, there are several cons associated with this type of democracy. One of the main points is that the majority can never be as informed on multifaceted specifics as representatives are. The majority in most cases has been often wrong, biased, and outright prejudiced. An example can be seen in the 1950 civil bill of right whereby if the majority were allowed to vote, they would have ended up making the wrong decision. In addition, direct democracy would be wrong since according to popular votes, polls show that, if America was a direct democracy today, gays would be permitted to serve amenably in the military, the use of marijuana marijuana would be legal, anti-abortion would be hugely allowed, and the country would have a standard tax rather than a graduated income tax. Furthermore, a minority activist could easily manipulate the people and control the decision making process. This is based on the low voter turnout in national elections. This means that direct democracy is only suitable in a small community format where all citizens can have their say. Moreover, the will of the minority would be easily turned down in a multi branch government. This means that the courts would easily overturn the direct will of the people while finding the decision unconstitutional. However, in representative democracy, the interests of the minority are hugely protected. The voters could be overawed by having to associate too many contenders, and the contenders may be overawed by the task of having to make their positions on issues known to all voters. Various prerequisites are necessary for direct democracy to take place. One of the most popular is that final approval might require a majority vote of the electorate, a super majority vote, or a majority with at least a minimum participation level commonly known as a "quorum requirement.” Another precondition, which is commonly seen in the California direct democracy, is that once approved, laws endorsed by direct democracy may be easy or tough to amend. At one extreme, California ingenuities can only be rewritten by inventiveness, while other states let the Congress to alter them as ordinary statutes. Moreover, the recall process often calls for a majority decision to overturn an earlier decision made through the same process. Direct democracy has failed to take place I many nations and where needed because of various reasons. One of the chief explanations is the lack of the majority quorum needed to see it through. This can happen in case people are not aware of what the decision pertains In addition, it can fail to happen because if the huge amount of resource required affecting it. One of them includes a huge capital. Huge capital is required to sensitize people and make them aware of the requirements and the benefits of change. Moreover, huge resources are required in the form of human capital required to make people aware of the benefits of the direct change. Another great challenge facing direct democracy is the lack of awareness among the people. This means that in order for them to be sensitized, a great process that uses a lot of money is required. Besides, this means that more people will be required to make people aware of their benefits. In addition, it also means that the minority’s wish will not be catered for. In addition, the few people who are aware of the constitution can mislead people. The two propositions raised various concerns among the people of California. Proposition 30 that was presented in the state official voter guide had several issues unique to itself as opposed to proposition 32. One of the main issues presented in the proposition was that there was no guarantee in the way the proposition was written that the money would be used for school purposes only. Moreover, the reforms in the proposition reforms to reduce the wastage, bureaucracy or cut administrative overhead. In addition, California residents view the new proposition as one that would aim at increasing the teachers’ pension fund.1 Proposition 32 raised issues unique to itself in a different way as opposed to proposition 30. Reformers argue that this proposition promises political reforms but this is not the case because it is designed by special interest groups to help them and harm their opponents. In addition, it is argued that the proposition was made to help the big businesses to such as Wall Street investment firms, hedge funds, investors, and insurance companies. Moreover, it is argued that the proposition is a cover-up for an additional unconcealed effort to decrease funds for liberal candidates while allowing contributions to conservatives remain unencumbered. As a voter in California, I will make various considerations while going to vote during the California proposition 30 referendums on the rights to sue insurers. One of them is the genuine claim of the third party. If the third party would have genuine claims and stands to benefit, I would vote for the bill to proceed. This is because the offended party will stand to benefit from malicious actions of the guilty party. It would also hinder claimants benefiting from unfair claim practices in certain liability cases and created a binding arbitration system for settling these liability cases2. However, concerning the sales and income tax, I would vote against it. This is because it would increase the sales tax from 7.25% to 7.5% and a 3.45% increase in the current law. In addition, it would increase the tax bracket in order to collect more tax from low-income earners instead targeting high-income earners. Concerning the California proposition 32, also known as the paycheck protection initiative, I would vote for it. This is because the proposition seeks to prohibit both corporate and union contributions to state and local candidates. This will hinder corporations from participating in elections, as it does not allow the views of the less fortunate to be considered. It will also ban donations from government contractors to the candidates who control contracts awarded to them. Moreover, it would ban involuntary deductions by corporations, unions, and government of workers’ salaries to be used for politics. My reaction to this proposition is that of a greedy government that only want to extort money from the public and use it to fund some unnecessary political ideologies. The passage of this measure would have a direct impact in my life since it will increase the amount of tax I pay to the government. Moreover, the money I paid may be used to fund a politicians view, which does not concur with my opinions. I agree that voters have a great decision to make on such propositions and are in a position to make such decisions through direct democracy. Works Cited California Proposition 30, Los Angeles: November 2, 2012. California Proposition 32, Los Angeles: November 2, 2012. Read More