Jim Devine :
2. There's a basic contradiction between democracy and capitalism which shapes the experience of the props in California. I'd rather not get rid of one element of democracy (the proposition system). It should be reformed of course (since it was designed to depoliticize politics, following the Progressive Movement of the early 20th century). But I'd rather not throw the baby out with the waste-water.
Also, instead of simply dismissing the prop. system in California, it's important to think about it in context, i.e., in comparison to the way the Sacramento state government works. The latter doesn't look so hot either. (You may have heard that we recently elected a vainglorious weight-lifter cum actor using the standard representative government system.)
^^^^ CB: Good points. The gubernatorial thing might have given recall a demerit, but in general, recall is an important democratic principle like propositions and referenda.
^^^^^
3. I should mention that there's an aspect of the California constitution that is closely related to the idea of subordinating eminent domain propositions to referenda. If the government borrows money to build a school or something like that, it must have a bond issue passed by the electorate. It's quite routine and most people vote for these bond measures.
These are very similar to the idea of referenda to okay use of eminent domain: both projects involve democratic okaying of public investment. This suggests that the idea of referenda for eminent domain is hardly radical or to be unthinkingly sneered at. Arnold's use of bonds to pay for the state government's deficit is truly radical, since it (strictly speaking) violates the state constitution.
^^^^ CB: I was thinking the same thing since bond proposals are often on the ballot.
Maybe the pubic vote on use of eminent domain could be restricted to those cases when the property in question is going to be shifted by the government to another private owner. No ballot proposition vote necessary if the property is to be retained by the government. This might cut down on the number of votes.
Also, there might be other prerequisites for a ballot proposal vote: the property owners in question file a petition for a vote, might be one procedural requirement.
I think you are correct in arguing that we should struggle with the difficult details for popular votes on eminent domain, rather than giving in to the practical problems and leaving it to representatives. For one thing, we want to use more popular votes as a way to get masses of people to do more self-governance. One problem with increased democracy is that it takes a lot more work by most people, and people don't want to take the time. Most people rather hand the sticky , complex problems over to politicians and "experts".
In general, a main barrier to democracy is not represssion from above, but
laziness and abdication of self-governance FROM BELOW ( to coin a phrase
:>)) . This is a real problem , seldom discussed in relation to problems of
democracy. Most people _want_ to be followers.
^