California Propositions Are a Bankrupt Idea

Quite a few years back, I had a debate with a friend. I disliked California's Proposition system, he thought it was great.

I am here to proclaim victory in the debate.

The Proposition System in California, while noble in theory, is an ill-thought out disaster. Somewhat like New Coke, the Edsel and Viet Nam. Miserable failure was the only likely outcome.

It was based on the premise of full-participation democracy of an informed citizenry, but even the Founding Fathers understood that that had its limits. America is not a democracy, it's a representative democracy. This is the concept that most people just want to know where the On switch is for their computer, not how electronics works. When it comes to laws, just pass the things, and if we don't like them, we'll vote you out.

However poorly one thinks of politicians, the Proposition System is worse. It starts with the faulty premise that the voting public is going to willingly study a thick guidebook. The voting public didn't willingly study even thin guidebooks when they were in high school and required to. Instead, with propositions, they turn to watching 30-second TV ads to learn what the laws are about.

Watching 30-second TV ads to learn what a law is about is like reading a fortune cookie and believing that you now understand Eastern Philosophy.

Initially, the Proposition System had its successes mixed among warning signs. That's when the legal equivalent of the San Andreas Fault hit in 1978. Proposition 13 - the most appropriately-numbered law ever. This wasn't just bad luck, this was The Big One.

For years, a crotchety coot named Howard Jarvis would annually try to get some loony proposition passed against having taxes. It was wildly entertaining, though a bit annoying, like watching a rapid dog yowl nightly at the moon. But in 1978, the moon yowled back, and his co-sponsored Proposition 13 actually passed. And the joke was on California.

On the surface, Proposition 13 appeared to be about limits on property taxes. What it actually did was send California crashing to ruin. It wasn't just that revenues plummeted, but that Proposition 13 required a "supermajority" of two-thirds vote in the state legislature for any tax increase.

The resulting problem is that the public keeps voting proposition initiatives to improve the state - yet they vote against bills to pay for it. And the state itself is unable to raise revenues to make up the difference.

(Side note: in the comedy, "Airplane!", a passenger gets in Robert Hayes' cab, just as the cabbie leaps out. That's actually Howard Jarvis. He sits in the taxi the entire movie, the butt of the joke, as the meter keeps running. Alas, talk about a prescient metaphor. California's meter has been running ever since.)

The additional problem with the Proposition System is that, unlike when a legislator puts himself on the line when passing laws, there is no one to vote out of office if a proposition screws things up. No one is responsible. So, the death spiral continues.

The result is that the California budget deficit is now $26.3 billion. The state sent out IOUs last week.

Certainly, there are many causes for the problems California faces today. But the root of the problem is that the California Proposition System is a system that allows reckless action without accountability. And worse, it's a system that increasingly does the very opposite of its original intent of full democratic participation of the public: the more propositions, the less the public wants to study them all - and the fewer people who vote. In the most recent special election this past June, specifically to deal with the state's budget crisis, voter turnout was a paltry 28.4 percent.

Worse still, because of another proposition - term limits - representatives know they have no political future, regardless of what they do in office, so there's no need to work out issues in the state legislature with your opponents, but just vote in self interest. The result is gridlock.

When you let politicians do what you elected them to do - for all the good and ill - at least you are getting 100% of the electorate represented in the results. And if you don't like those results, you can vote your officials out. But with the Proposition System, a mere quarter of the public is at times deciding how the state should be run. Based on watching 30-second TV ads. With no accountability.

How can anyone be shocked to discover that people vote for things they like, vote against paying taxes - and a $26.3 billion deficit is created because a near-impossible two-thirds supermajority is needed to fix things?! And you throw out your leader to bring in an movie actor with no political experience to get you out of the mess.

This is no way to run a democracy.

Make no mistake, it crosses all parties.

In California, majority doesn't rule. It's the tyranny of the minority, but worse it's too often the tyranny of the irrational. The California Proposition System may have begun with a noble intent, but it was ill-conceived, and has become selfish, greedy, mindless, unworkable and a disaster.

There is only one proposition worthy of having on the ballot and voting for. A proposition that would get rid of the California Proposition System.

Comments

[Rational-1]

There is an easy way out... stopping spending more than you take in.

[Wolves50]

You are spot on. Too bad that is such a difficult concept for politicians to grasp.

[JavaSavant]

Reading comprehension. It's not just for breakfast any more! Let me spell it out for you.

Proposition X passes requiring state to do Y (no politicians involved).
Doing Y costs money, but Proposition X doesn't have any funding provisions.
Politicians have to find way to pay for doing Y.
Proposition 13 prevents politicians from funding Y.

The proposition system is a system for generating unfunded mandates, and one of the first ones was to make sure the mandates would remain unfunded.

Propositions should be required to come with a cost analysis and a method of funding. But that is not something your average-joe proposition writer can do. That is something politicians do. If they don't, you vote them out. Unfortunately, you cannot vote out a proposition writer.

Why do you expect politicians to "pay as you go", but not propositions, which the politicians have no control over?

[exxman]

I can't wait to hear the pi.ss.ing and moaning when the spending cuts kick in. We'll need to open the prison doors and let a lot of the inmates out. Not all of the released will be non-violent and there will be fewer police to deal with the incease in crime. The state park system will take a huge hit and that will have a negative effect on tourism income necessitating further cuts. Classroom sizes will increase dramatically so the quality of a public education will decrease. The already poor infrastucture in the state will get much worse. I could go on and on. Somewhere along the way someone is going to have to open their wallet and take out some money or this state will just continue to swirl down the bowl toward the sewer.

[cupcake65]

It's really annoying when there are provisions in state law that allow the people to have a direct input into just how the state is run, isn't it? That wasn't allowed in 1930's Germany, you know.

[exxman]

What is annoying is people voting for propositions based on 30 second tv adds with no consideration of how it will be paid for or what affect it will have over the long run.

[cupcake65]

The same way they voted for President, you mean?

[Wolves50]

I agree with what you're saying for the most part, but the comments about an essentially uninformed public voting opens the door to a lot of other questions. You could say the same things about voting for candidates as well. There are a lot of candidates to choose between for various positions on any big election year, and a lot of people just don't take enough time to study them. It would also be easy to say that people that are habitual users of entitlement programs are biased and will turn a blind eye to other issues and vote for candidates that will continue increasing their benefits just as a lot of people thought it would be great to not pay property taxes without thinking of the consequences. There are a whole slough of reasons why a large number of voters could be considered inadequately prepared to make good decisions at the polls.

Anyway, enough of me drifting away from the issue. My point is that the problem that surfaces with the proposition system is really only a huge problem that is pervasive throughout the country on a lot of different levels and is only being magnified by the flawed system in California. I really wish I could know how many people make voting decisions based almost entirely on clever 30 commercials and snippets of speeches on the news.

[ModernTimes1]

re."On the surface, Proposition 13 appeared to be about limits on property taxes."

it is factually incorrect to state Prop 13 did not have the intended effect of drastically lower tax burden. for many.
It did not "appear" to limit property, It DID limit property tax. This was no gimmick.
By all accounts this tax revolt occurred reaction to ever increasing tax burden and infamously draconian tax liens and fees slapped left and right on homeowners.
I agree however with the ensuing discussion of the devastaing effect Prop 13 had on education and services.

[TheHandyman]

Until such time as the Elected officials of California can write better laws than the citizens then the proposition system is just as good as anything else. Your declaring yourself the winner in the debate is just like someone else who said "mission accomplished." You are wrong!

You also remind me of all those elected officials and punits that are about 50 years behind the People and yet you all seem to know oh so much better than we do what is good for us and what isn't. It is only you who don't vote in your own self best interest. It is you who feel that what you do is for the greater good!

Californians have recognized for sometime that the people they elect have been lying to them and are only interested in doing what is right for the wealthy elite and the corporations. Talk about tyranny by the minority. We know that every time our elected officials go on a mad spending spree that it is us who will pay for it as they decide to cut education, healthcare, social srvices, fire, police all the while they continue to fund their friends in high places.

Excuse me if I perceive you as an idealogue rather than a serious journalist. Just exactly what is it you really hope to gain?

[JBCinSD]

You are so right.

When we moved to CA 21 years ago, I was intrigued by the prospect of initiative and referendum. Over those years, I have discovered that it is untenable. My husband and I devote the Sunday evening before Tuesday elections to studying the ballot initiatives; although we are both well-educated and well-informed citizens, we can barely discern their true intent. The "Clean Water Act" is likely sponsored by a company wanting to pour waste into the water supply. Most rationales start out with something like, "although (workplace safety, good schools, whatever) is a goal we all want to achieve, this proposition is so flawed that it will actually take us further from that goal".

You can be sure the average citizen is voting based primarily on the 30-second TV ads paid for by the sponsor of the proposition. The opposition is usually The Common Good (clean water, less air pollution, etc.) - rarely a match in organization and funding to counter the sponsor.

While I continue to support a 2/3 vote to pass the budget, I hope our recent vote for redistricting by a (supposedly) non-partisan committee will eventually lead to more moderate lawmakers in Sacramento.

We're in a mess and there's no easy or quick way out, but doing away with initiative and referendum is surely part of the solution.