cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31296448
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiatives_and_referendums_in_the_United_States?wprov=srpw1_0
do you think there is a possibility for this ?
I kinda disagree. The biggest problem here is that there are far too many special interests that would submit shit nobody else agrees with, but might get passed because nobody has the time to keep up on all the potential things and look into what they actually mean.
Imagine if you will some evangelical group trying to ban apple pies because a bunch of their kids managed to get their hands on a copy of american pie. Give the referendum some bland name like “protecting our kids”… then lie about what’s in the bill.
Okay, it’s a silly premise, but imagine all the special interests groups suddenly crafting law, lying about what the laws would be, flooding the zone with their bullshit and seeing what sticks.
I agree that referendums require a well-informed public, exhaustive debate, and a good visibility for each opinion expressed.
Now, they have it in Switzerland without any major problem that I’m aware of, they still can eat apples. :)
For reference, the entire country of Switzerland is only 9m people covering 15K sq-mi. The Los Angeles metro area is 18m people covering 33K sq-mi. The only reason it works there is the county is so small.
It’s impossible for the average American to be that well informed.
Let’s do a little exercise. List the legal status of abortion in every state. Weed? Gas leaf blowers? Healthcare.
I can’t. I doubt there’s many who can.
Further, “Switzerland does it” is * not* a very good argument. On the practicality side of it, the US is far, far more comparable to the entire EU in population and land area than we are to any given member state.
In the US, it would become a tool for special interests to advance unpopular agendas by bypassing normal representation, relying on the inability of normal Americans to actually read everything.
This is why we have representatives in the first place.
Switzerland is like the size of New Jersey…
Believe it or not, the US has no mechanism for a national election. While the Federal Government sets guidelines for elections, each state runs its own. Every election is on the state level. Even the Presidential Election, thanks to the Electoral College, is really just a weighted sum of the outcome of 50 state elections (and DC).
Even Constitutional Amendments go through a state-by-state ratification process.
I think it’s impossible to do any sort of true nationwide referendum without a Constitutional Amendment happening first. Remember that the Constitution explicitly states that any powers not explicitly given to the Federal Government are reserved for the States (and the People). So the power to have Federal referendums would need to be explicitly granted.
So you’re saying if enough states decided to have federal referendums, it would take an amendment to remove that power from the states? (Really though, a court would squash that quick)
I’m saying that States cannot have Federal referendums. States can have State Referendums. More than one state can hold a referendum at the same time if their own Constitutions allow it, but they are all still State Referendums.
The Federal government does not have the power to hold country-wide referendums, it would have to be given the power through an amendment, which would also specify the parameters (and, more importantly, the limits) of this new power the people are giving to its Federal Government.
(This all assumes the Constitution still matters, which is a matter for debate these days)
I’m starting to think maybe Republicans are right and the entire idea of a federal government is flawed.
If you break something it’s def broken.
