Here is an interesting idea. If you have a ballot measure in re: crime, have a ballot measure with the opposite ideas on the subject. Allow the voters to decide the issue with alternatives, not just one side.
“The controversy exposed a problem with California’s direct democracy. There is no fair, and voter-centered process for putting counter-measures on the ballot.
But it would be easy to put one in place.
Some countries with direct democracy have just such an established process for encouraging counter-proposals. Switzerland, with a ballot initiative system that inspired California’s own, has the best.
Both Switzerland and California have similar processes allowing for negotiations between legislative bodies and initiative proponents. If those negotiations produce a compromise, the initiative can be removed from the ballot.
If those negotiations fail, as they often do, initiative supporters go forward with their measure. The legislative body is free to put its own counter measure on the ballot.
The difference between Switzerland and California is that California has no clear rules that govern these counter-measures. As a result, California counter measures can be presented on ballots in ways that are haphazard or unfair. The measures aren’t linked together on the ballot, which confuses voters.
If you look at the results, it is obvious the current system is broke. It is time to discuss ways of fixing it. That is the democratic way.
Ballot Measure Should Face a Counter Proposal
by Joe Mathews • Zócalo, 7/27/24 https://timesofsandiego.com/opinion/2024/07/27/to-improve-democracy-every-ballot-measure-should-face-a-counter-proposal/
If you want to better understand the true nature of a proposal, consider a counter-proposal.
Looking at competing proposals forces you to reckon with the details of each idea.
Which is why every proposition on the California ballot should have a counter-proposal.
I suggest this now because of a nasty fight in the state Capitol earlier this summer. The fight was over a November ballot initiative to increase penalties for some drug and retail theft crimes, and a possible counter measure offered by the governor and legislature.
The details of the dispute are too complicated to be listed here. But Democratic leaders were seeking to use the counter-measure (and some related bills) to confuse voters and sabotage the initiative.
In the end, with Democrats facing accusations of “election interference” from the media and Republicans, Gov. Gavin Newsom dropped the counter-measure.
Which was too bad. Voters would have benefited from a clear choice.
The controversy exposed a problem with California’s direct democracy. There is no fair, and voter-centered process for putting counter-measures on the ballot.
But it would be easy to put one in place.
Some countries with direct democracy have just such an established process for encouraging counter-proposals. Switzerland, with a ballot initiative system that inspired California’s own, has the best.
Both Switzerland and California have similar processes allowing for negotiations between legislative bodies and initiative proponents. If those negotiations produce a compromise, the initiative can be removed from the ballot.
If those negotiations fail, as they often do, initiative supporters go forward with their measure. The legislative body is free to put its own counter measure on the ballot.
The difference between Switzerland and California is that California has no clear rules that govern these counter-measures. As a result, California counter measures can be presented on ballots in ways that are haphazard or unfair. The measures aren’t linked together on the ballot, which confuses voters.
The Swiss have a standard process for counter measures that is fair. Each counter measure is clearly labeled as such, and placed on the ballot right next to the initiative to which it responds. If California adopted this process, counter-measures would be labeled with the same proposition number as the initiative (the initiative might be 24A and the counter-measure 24B), and with language that made clear that the measures were competing proposals on the same subject.
In a Swiss-style process, California voters would have three questions to answer on each initiative. Yes or no on the initiative. Yes or no on the counter-measure. And then a third choice: if both of these measures pass, which one do you want to go into effect?
The benefits of such a three-part question would be obvious. Voters would have more clarity about their choices — and more power, regardless of whether their preferred outcome wins or loses. Even voters who oppose both the initiative and the counter-measure would be able to register a preference for the one they object to least. Ultimately, voting results would more closely match voter preferences.
I’ve spent considerable time observing Swiss votes on initiatives and referenda, and there’s another advantage to this three-question system. It produces better, more informative campaigns.
Right now, we California voters consider each initiative separately in the vacuum. We learn few details of the measures. Instead, we often vote based on our feelings about an issue, or by following the endorsements in a partisan voter guide.
A Swiss-style comparative campaign — where voters must choose between an initiative and counter-proposal — forces voters, and the media, to delve into the details of the two measures. Because the natural question to ask of competing measures is: What is the difference between them? Answering that question requires looking at the actual language and policy detail.
Californians won’t have that option this November. Instead, their choices will be one measure, Prop 36., that proposes harder-line solutions to drug and theft problems — or maintaining the status quo.
The proposed Democratic bills and measure, now abandoned, weren’t much better. But a transparent process would have allowed legislators to draft a better counter measure, knowing it would go on the ballot right next to the initiative. Or to negotiate in better faith with the initiative sponsors.
Either way, a clear and fair process would have produced more choices for voters, and likely better public policy.
So, let’s give the people a counter-proposal now.
Joe Mathews writes the Connecting California column for Zócalo Public Square, an Arizona State University media enterprise.
