Should government policies be decided by referendum?

[Valmy]

If we had that approach, black people still wouldn't be allowed to vote in the South.

Well, as I said earlier, you can use that example to discredit Democracy itself.  Our system could not handle the white supremacist stuff, that is what made it so traumatic and why we had to kill hundreds of thousands of Lettowists (not that the Northerners were not white supremacists but, you know, slightly more reasonable ones).  Simply put there is no way to structure a democratic republican form of government that could have prevented that.

[Barrister]

Then why did gays just get the right to marry in Maine and Maryland a couple of weeks ago?

I said the wrong approach, not an illegal approach, asshole.

Referendums on civil rights are cop-out by politicians so they don't need to take the heat on unpopular initiatives, anyway.

Which is why referendums are a great idea - something can be politically difficult so politicians don't want to touch it, but voters can force the issue.

I raised it as proof that minority rights can be recognized by voters.

Slavery was abolished by the Emancipation Proclamation, but the south resented it for generations and continued to treat blacks very, very badly.

Slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment.   But because the South resented it, it shouldn't have been passed?  Go fucking die.

I really didn't want to get into an entire discussion of the history of the Civil War.  Yes I am familiar with the 13th Amendment.

Clearly by 1863 the die was cast and the Emancipation Proclamation (and then the 13th and 14th amendments) were necessary.  But surely history would have been quite different (and better off) if a way to abolish slavery without resorting to civil war.

[Malthus]

If we had that approach, black people still wouldn't be allowed to vote in the South.

Well, as I said earlier, you can use that example to discredit Democracy itself.  Our system could not handle the white supremacist stuff, that is what made it so traumatic and why we had to kill hundreds of thousands of Lettowists (not that the Northerners were not white supremacists but, you know, slightly more reasonable ones).  Simply put there is no way to structure a democratic republican form of government that could have prevented that.

As I said, you guys should have stayed loyal to the Crown. If you had, slavery would have been abolished and all those Lettowists could have happily lived out their lives doing the 19th century version of obsessing over anime. 

[Valmy]

As I said, you guys should have stayed loyal to the Crown. If you had, slavery would have been abolished and all those Lettowists could have happily lived out their lives doing the 19th century version of obsessing over anime. 

Huh.  How did that work?  Did the Jamaican plantations suddenly become autonomous collectives?

[CountDeMoney]

If we had that approach, black people still wouldn't be allowed to vote in the South.

Well, as I said earlier, you can use that example to discredit Democracy itself.

Democracy can be discredited all sorts of ways.  Yahoo.  Bill of Rights. Federalist Papers #10.  Go read them.

[Malthus]

As I said, you guys should have stayed loyal to the Crown. If you had, slavery would have been abolished and all those Lettowists could have happily lived out their lives doing the 19th century version of obsessing over anime. 

Huh.  How did that work?  Did the Jamaican plantations suddenly become autonomous collectives?

Depends on where. In Jamaca and elsewhere reliant on agricultural slave labour, the Brits abolished chattel slavery and then imported Indians and Chinese as "indentured workers" to labour on the plantations instead. 

[CountDeMoney]

But surely history would have been quite different (and better off) if a way to abolish slavery without resorting to civil war.

And if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass.  BFD.

[Valmy]

Depends on where. In Jamaca and elsewhere reliant on agricultural slave labour, the Brits abolished chattel slavery and then imported Indians and Chinese as "indentured workers" to labour on the plantations instead. 

Heh.  Oh that would have been popular in the South.

[merithyn]

Which is why referendums are a great idea - something can be politically difficult so politicians don't want to touch it, but voters can force the issue.

I raised it as proof that minority rights can be recognized by voters.

I really didn't want to get into an entire discussion of the history of the Civil War.  Yes I am familiar with the 13th Amendment.

Clearly by 1863 the die was cast and the Emancipation Proclamation (and then the 13th and 14th amendments) were necessary.  But surely history would have been quite different (and better off) if a way to abolish slavery without resorting to civil war.

Ahem.

The laws came first, which forced the change. Had it been left on its own, I can't imagine that it would ever have happened.

[Faeelin]

Clearly by 1863 the die was cast and the Emancipation Proclamation (and then the 13th and 14th amendments) were necessary.  But surely history would have been quite different (and better off) if a way to abolish slavery without resorting to civil war.

In what possible way would it have been better?

[Barrister]

Ahem.

The laws came first, which forced the change. Had it been left on its own, I can't imagine that it would ever have happened.

What laws forced what change?  I didn't respond because I didn't understand your post.

[Malthus]

Depends on where. In Jamaca and elsewhere reliant on agricultural slave labour, the Brits abolished chattel slavery and then imported Indians and Chinese as "indentured workers" to labour on the plantations instead. 

Heh.  Oh that would have been popular in the South.

I think the main difference is that the actual population of White Brits in Jamaca and elsewhere reliant on agricultural slavery was very tiny (albeit very wealthy). There was never any possibility of the Jamacan planters resisting emancipation with violence.

In contrast, in the South the wealthy slave-owning class somehow convinced the much more numerous poor Lettowists to fight for slavery (oh, "states' rights") even though it in no way benefited them personally.

Now, had the US South been part of a global British Empire, and had it lacked the salutary example of the successful American Revolution, it is that much less likely that they would have resisted emancipation with rebellion. 

[Faeelin]

Or defending slavery would have become tied to American nationalism, giving birth to a dark nation founded on conquering the planet.

[merithyn]

What laws forced what change?  I didn't respond because I didn't understand your post.

Civil Rights Law 1964 - Forced changes in how women and minorities were hired, trained, and treated in the work place. Attitudes didn't change until the 1980s or better, but it would never have changed without the law

Courts enforce descrimination laws regarding blacks voting 1950s and 1960s - massive change in social status for all minorites.

The 13th and 14th amendments 1863-4 - Obvious (slavery would never have gone away in the US south without the Civil War and these amendements)

EDIT: Were any of these left to referendum, the status quo would have held. All of these laws went against the majority.

[crazy canuck]

In answer to the question in the OP I think legislation by referendum is a terrible idea.  Just look at the recent example of repealing the HST in BC and going back to an unwieldy inefficient separate PST and GST.

The reason the referendum to repeal the HST succeeded had very little to do with the tax itself and eveything to do with how unpopular the Provincial Liberal party had become.  Add to that the fact that the anti HST side was well financed vs a pro HST side that well didnt really have anyone advocating for it since the Liberals party didnt fight for measure themselves but took the view that they would do whatever the electorate wanted and you end up with very bad policy being implemented in a very bad way.