What sorts of issues are best put to voters in a referendum?
Posted at 5:00 AM on September 2, 2011
by Eric Ringham
(39 Comments)
Filed under: Politics/Government
A Ramsey County citizens panel is planning to hold public hearings on the financing of a proposed Vikings stadium, but some officials are calling for a referendum to put the issue before voters. Today's Question: What sorts of issues are best put to voters in a referendum?
Comments (39)
Shiver me timbers, them's some great infraomtoin.
@ Dotti,
I think the hobbits would be offended to think they were associated with the Tea Party.
A far better analogy would be the orks.
No more temples to Footbaal! Quit worshiping and making sacrifices to Footbaal! Tell Governor Ahab to quit listening to the prophets of Footbaal!
No, Glenn, Minnesota does not have "initiative and referrendum." That was an idea that became popular after Minnesota joined the Union and crafted its original constitution, which is why it's mainly states farther west that have it. Seeing what mischief it's led to elsewhere, I'm glad we don't.
"It has become more obvious that Nancy Pelosi has given marching orders to her minions...."
To the (minimal) extent that's true, Dotti, she's only following the precedent of the Gang Of Plutocrats, who've been doing that with their official talking points since the days of Speaker Gingrich.
Issues that involve entertainment/leisure spending that go past a certain dollar threshold. A current reasonable one would seem to be 10 or 20 million dollars, and then adjust it for inflation. Any public funds beyond that, referendum.
But- public infrastructure (roads, bridges, schools, rails, transit, etc) shouldn't fall to the whims of voters.
We live in a republic. We elect people to represent us and make decisions that are one step removed from the emotions of the public. Those who say that they need to vote on whether we build a new Vikings stadium for example, have no faith or trust in their representatives. If that is the case, then they need to vote out their representatives, not on the issue at hand. If we vote on everything in referenda, we would accomplish nothing. In recent history, neither the Twins stadium, the Mall of America or the Xcel Center would have been built had they been subject to referenda, yet they are among our most popular local attractions today. Do not trust any politician who argues for a referendum; that politician is simply trying to abrogate the responsibility for which s/he was elected. Likewise, do not trust a member of the public who demands a referendum on individual issues, for they are not a (small "r") republican and argue in favor of what essentially will become emotionally-charged chaos.
Those which DO NOT involve the civil rights of others.
Our whole form of government is supposed to be devised to protect the rights of minorities against the current/common way of thinking of the majority if necessary.
Without this functioning properly, we would still be a nation shamefully enmeshed even more deeply in bigotry toward blacks, and many others.
The very idea of public referendums to undo and prevent civil rights, such as gay marriage for one, is a reprehensible slap in the face to the foresight of our founding fathers.
It is tragic when private pillagers use government to legally steal from tax payers. Israel is a prime example of abusing public funds, taking 1.6 Trillion dollars and going strong today. Let's have a referendum about foreign aid.
Who protects the public from being pillaged? A referendum can help. When private business, banks, nation states, seek public subsidies it should be a referendum.
The public should be able to protect itself.
Public schools, public health, benefit the public equally. Money for sports stadiums is a subsidy for a private business.
Any financial subsidy of a private business should be put up for a public referendum.
Legalizing pot should be put to voters in a referendum. It's safe, useful and fun. It's high time to to end prohibition. Let the corrupt history of its criminalization be known and free this kind and beneficial plant for the good of all life.
I don't think referendums are ever a good idea. The general public is not informed enough and they are too emotional about the issues to make very good decisions about most things.
The issues that should go to voters in referenda are those on which the politicians are too craven to do what's right on their own volition.
Referenda waste money we don't have to determine how to spend money we don't have.
And then there's the intolerance referenda, like the constitutional ban on gay-marriage referendum coming our way like a freight train...
I'm not sure.. so I'll ask. Is initiative and referendum possible in Minnesota??
Aren't there State statutes that say "No... ya can't do that!!!!"
Glenn
From what I understand about how our government should work is this. We elect representatives to, get this, represent the people so we don't have to vote everything by a referendum, as they seem to do in California. That's the theory anyway. It's too bad that the representative government we elect instead answers not to the people but to mega corporations, lobbyists, Wall Street capitalists, special interests and unions.
My argument is at what point do we draw the line on policy-by-referendum? Vikings Stadium? Legalize marijuana, fireworks, smoking in bars? Should everything be put to a referendum? If so then why elect a Legislature? And who's to say if the results of a referendum are binding.
As with Target Field, Hennepin County Board of Dictators violated the law, (which called for a voter approval), and declared by edict the sales tax to fund the new ballpark. In California the people voted against gay marriage, albeit by the slimmest margin, but the courts ruled the referendum unconstitutional.
These are two prime examples where a voter referendum holds no sway in government policy. There WILL be a new Vikings stadium. How can there not be?
Your an idiot dotti, roul, what ever your name is today.
Issues for referendum are meaningless as long as the media picks and chooses what they cover and who they cover. As long as we see these things going along every day, voters are misled:
From the media: It has become more obvious that Nancy Pelosi has given marching orders to her minions: ramp up the rhetoric against the Tea Party! We've already been called hobbits by John McCain, terrorists by Joe Biden, and racists by just about everyone in the mainstream media, so she assumes we must be vulnerable to the attacks!
Less than two weeks ago, Maxine Waters received a standing ovation from public employees in the audience when she said the Tea Party can "go straight to hell." Just a few days later, her good friend and fellow Pelosi-goon Frederica Wilson (D-FL) told her constituents to remember that we are "the real enemy." And then, just a couple days after that, Jesse Jackson used his time at a Martin Luther King, Jr. luncheon to call the Tea Party movement racist again.
All of these attacks pale in comparison, though, to the hateful imagery used by another Democrat Congressman. Andre Carson (D-IN) who said Tuesday night that the Tea Party in Congress wants to see African-Americans "hanging on a tree!" Violent rhetoric like this detracts from the debate and makes it harder for us to do what's best for the country.
We've been told to tone down our rhetoric by the liberal elite and our President Obama, and John Kerry even lectured the media and told them to stop giving American tea Party supporters their first amendment rights to free speech. It's obvious, though, to anyone paying attention that the violent, hateful rhetoric isn't coming from the Tea Party movement; it's coming from those who want to silence us!"
So how can voters address referendum issues when our mainstream media controls what is presented?
Some bills require deep understanding of the law; in such cases referenda are useless. The vote to subsidize a sports team is perfect for a referendum—do the taxpayers wish to.
Without a referendum the Vikings will purchase representatives’ votes, they would be foolish not to.
First - rules of operation for the legislature (compensation, staff, house-senate rules, etc.) . Self-governenance by majority party rule is introducing erratic swings in how law is made and people who do it are paid for.. Second - any mixed government-private sector cooperative ( JOBZ, Stadium proposals , etc.)
The ending of the prohibition of the world useful and versatile plant, Cannabis/Hemp in all of it forms.
"The war may not be quite over but any stigma still left lingering around cannabis consumption today is largely restricted to out of date and increasingly unenforced pieces of legislation. So indelibly stamped on our culture has cannabis become that it must now rank as the most popular and controversial plant on the planet." - Nick Jones
Why use up the forests which were centuries in the making and the mines which required ages to lay down, if we can get the equivalent of forest and mineral products in the annual growth of the hemp fields?
- Henry Ford
"However, the connection of hemp as a crop and marijuana seems to be exaggerated. The drug is usually produced from wild hemp or locoweed which can be found on vacant lots and along railroad tracks in every state. If federal regulations can be drawn to protect the public without preventing the legitimate culture of hemp, this new crop can add immeasurably to American agriculture and industry." - Popular Mechanics, 1938
"Aspirin is “safe,” although it claims between 1,000-2,000 people per year.
With cannabis, it’s been around for thousands of years. There has never been a death – never been a death.
Is there any other substance in the pharmacoepia about which you can make that claim? I’m not sure there is.” ~ Dr. Lester Grinspoon, M.D.
Prohibition... goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes... A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded. - Abraham Lincoln
Make the most of the Indian hemp seed, and sow it everywhere! - George Washington, First U.S. President
The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world. - Carl Sagan
"The best hemp and the best tobacco grown on the same kind of soil. The former article is of first necessity to the commerce and marine, in other words to the wealth and protection of the country. The latter, never useful and sometimes pernicious, derives its estimation from caprice."
-Thomas Jefferson, 3rd U.S. President, Jefferson's journal entry / March 16, 1791
someone please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that it is currently required that citizens have the right to a referendum, and that bills then routinely (as in the case of the Target Field hoodwinking) provide an exemption from that requirement. If I am correct, then at some time the requirement was put into law and our own elected officials agreed that we deserve some protect from... them. Rightly so.
At first, when the referendum issue came up with regards to the stadium issue, my thought was "Yes, I know we can beat it based on a referendum, nobody wants to chip in money for millionaires! Its just wrong, poor people pay a disproportionate amount of their income in sales taxes!" but then I thought about it in reference to your question, and I thought about CA and I thought about all the things we could talk people out of by putting it on a ballot. We elect people to be our leaders, and to stand behind good ideas we may not like but that are good for us, kind of the brussels sprouts of public policy. If we have to choose to eat our brussels sprouts every fall in the ballot box, we may never eat our veggies again, and our society will just disintegrate, so even though it costs me an effective tool against something I truly hate (corporate welfare) I'd say referendums are really a cop out and not good public policy.
I think we should have a referendum on non essential items that will be funded by tax dollars. Which would include a stadium. It would also include things like a new swimming pool at the local high school and monuments on government property.
You know those extra things that are nice, but we can defiantly live without.
Note; Idea number one should read. "until a budget is signed into law." instead of "until a budget is passed"
I can only think of two issues that I would like to be on a referendum:
1.If legislators fail to successfully enact a budget (passed and signed into law) before the end of the session should they lose all forms of compensation including per diem until a budget is passed?
2. Should corporations be considered citizens under the law? (this would need to be a national referendum)
Otherwise referendums are used to manipulate the electorate and do the job of the legislature. For every referendum put on a ballot the legislature should take a pay cut.
I'm not sure what "sort" of issue in general should be put to a referendum, but using public money to finance a sports stadium is one that should be.
Until we had a referendum on an earlier iteration of this same issue of public funding for a sports venue, I supported Minneapolis Mayor Sharon Sayles-Belton. After the votes were counted -- well over 90% of Minneapolitans AGAINST the proposal -- Sayles-Belton still tried to push it forward. That effort to defy the overwhelming wish of the citizens failed, but I could never forgive her for betraying her constituents that way.
I don't know if Ramsey County residents should get to vote on the stadium issue, but that kind of referendum should be done sparingly. I grew up in a state with initiative and referendum. If you think Minnesota's legislature is dysfunctional, you'd be astounded by what goes on when big money interests can hire signature gatherers to get just about anything they want on the ballot.
None, with the exceptions Reggie stated. It's a useful tool at the local level, but at the state level it's only used to either distract from more important issues or pander to a misguided voter base (i.e. gay marriage). In the stadium case it's being used to shift blame from the inept politicians to the people.
If they want to put something to a vote, how about a law at the federal level that makes it illegal for sports teams to even ask the city/state government to pay for or chip in for their infrastructure. I'm sure if the NFL and major league baseball can afford to pay for their stadiums if they had to. If the playing field was level and a team couldn't hold a locale hostage by asking them to pay for it, or they'll move we wouldn't be taxed to support a group of millionaires who have never ever been to the super bowl in my life time. Seems like extortion to me which i thought WAS illegal.
I don't believe any issues should be put to the voters. Isn't this why we elect people to represent us?
Everything ... referendums have resulted in huge successes in California ... Prop 13th hobbled legislators' ability to increase property taxes ... now the state is on the brink of bankruptcy and has nowhere to go to raise revenues but income taxes on individuals and fees … where else to look for leadership examples in state governance then a state that produces a cornucopia of fruits and nuts.
None. Don't we elect these folks into their jobs, and then pay them to deliberate on honest research so that they are qualified to make decisions? I just cannot justify letting uninformed, gut-trusting regular citizens like myself make these kinds of decisions.
Why don't politicians have the courage to vote on the stadium bill for themselves. That's what their districts elected them for. It would appear that accountability and courage is becoming a thing of the past.
We have a representative democracy where citizens elect other citizens to represent them in the decision making processes. The legislature has a system of committees and subcommittees for representatives to hear testimony and to become educated on the issues that they will be voting on. The only reason that legislators want to put these issues to a referendum is because they are fearful of the political repercussions of having to cast a vote on an issue. Legislators should have the courage to vote their beliefs or find another line of work.
Referendums are only effective for strictly local issues: city/county taxes, school levies, and the like. As a tool for shaping broader public policies, they are too blunt an instrument. For state-wide or national issues, we elect representatives every two, four, or six years.
The fact that our current system of representation isn't very representative does not mean governing issue-by-issue by referendum would be better.
None.
Most voters don’t have the time, aptitude, or inclination to fully research and understand the consequences of a vote on a particular issue, and they have strong prejudices. This is why we elect representatives. They are supposed to be thoughtful and make measured decisions that are protective of minorities and good for most of the people.
A popular vote on a particular issue can lead to the “tyranny of the masses”. I grew up in the state of Virginia in the 50’s and 60’s. Discrimination against African Americans would never have changed if it had been up to the people I knew.
By giving voters the impression that they have more influence than they actually wield, Government risks disappointing and ultimately alienating the very people with whom it seeks to engage
Agreed Donna: pay cuts for legislators.
We have checks/balances in gov't to reduce "tyranny of the majority" and referenda bypass some of these.
None, its just a way for legislatures to take cover, hide from what they support. Every one on the ballot should be a pay deduction for legislators. We elected them to do a job, right or left they are supposed to make these calls if they get enough votes.
The issues we should put up for a referendum are all those for which my side stands the best chance of winning.
| September 2011 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- Have changes to the airline passenger experience affected your willingness to fly?
- Should marijuana be available for medical use in Minnesota?
- Do the struggles of Minnesota's business icons signal trouble for the state's economy?
- Do you know whether insurance would cover your losses in a major storm?
- What kind of recycling program would you be likely to use the most?
- Would you support paying people for organ or tissue donations?
- Have personal relationships in the workplace ever presented a problem for you?
- Do you think Facebook is a passing fad?
- Will you be less likely to visit the Minnesota Zoo without its dolphins?
- Should authorities in the Twin Cities change the way they warn people about tornadoes?
Public Insight Network
The Public Insight Network draws upon your experiences to help shape our coverage.More
Categories
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock