A debate I started with the French guys :)
So, in France, gay marriage is apparently an issue as big as in some Southern US States. There was a protest (and a riot, it is France, after all :P) this week-end, and among the arguments against, it was said that "such important issues should be decided by the people, by a referendum, not by the politicians".
I think it's a nice principle. I do like the way the Americans do it, voting on a proposition at the same time as an election.
However, it can lead to some silly issues. Most voters don't want to cut services that directly affect them, most voters won't support a tax increase for them.
Given the examples of Canada, I also think some social issues would not have been settled when they were, had we used a referendum. Stuff like gay marriage or death penalty might still be hot issues for half the population instead of being settled. In the US, slavery and the civil rights issues might not have been settled with a referendum.
So what is, in your opinion, the preferred approach to settle contentious, divisive issues? A popular referendum or letting your legislative assembly doing the work they should be doing, making the tough decisions for you?
Why isn't this thread a referendum (poll) ? :mad:
Texas has a strong populist frontier tradition that involves voting on every bond, tax increase, and change to the state constitution as well as electing an absurd percentage of the public officials. Last election I voted on the local Community College's board of trustees.
The results can be pretty nutty, particularly when you have 40 or so elections the electorate was not even aware they were voting on. The most disastrous result of this sort of thing can be seen in California with their populist voter initiative, more money and fewer taxes for everything!
I think only major changes that impact everybody like changes to the Constitution should be up for a referendum, that may include gay marriage in France or not.
I don't think anything that relates to a minority class should be decided by referendum. By default, the majority would always have the advantage, meaning that minorities could potentially always get the shit end of the deal. See: US black population prior to 1960.
It is, actually, one of my biggest gripes regarding how the US Congress acts. They should respect and champion their minority groups despite the majority when it comes to rights, education, and basic care. I understand the problems - they could be kicked out of office - and that's where I see a major concern in our system.
Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 10:14:42 AM
I don't think anything that relates to a minority class should be decided by referendum. By default, the majority would always have the advantage, meaning that minorities could potentially always get the shit end of the deal. See: US black population prior to 1960.
It is, actually, one of my biggest gripes regarding how the US Congress acts. They should respect and champion their minority groups despite the majority when it comes to rights, education, and basic care. I understand the problems - they could be kicked out of office - and that's where I see a major concern in our system.
Almost everything potentially relates to a minority class of some sort.
I'm thinking specifically of minority rights, like gay marriage or allowing minorities to vote.
Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 10:14:42 AM
I don't think anything that relates to a minority class should be decided by referendum. By default, the majority would always have the advantage, meaning that minorities could potentially always get the shit end of the deal. See: US black population prior to 1960.
Well you could use that precedent to justify eliminating Democracy all together :P
But a key part in that example was the denial of the right to vote to Blacks. Once they had it it was amazing how soon the oppressive laws began to recede.
Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 10:27:09 AM
I'm thinking specifically of minority rights, like gay marriage or allowing minorities to vote.
Ah ok. You said 'anything that relates to a minority class' not 'basic human rights of minorities' so it threw us off a bit.
Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 10:27:09 AM
I'm thinking specifically of minority rights, like gay marriage or allowing minorities to vote.
Fair enough. Ideally, that should be dealt with by a nation's constitution.
After all, as one fellow once put it, without constitutional protection of minority rights, democracy is two sheep and three wolves voting on what's for dinner tonight. ;)
Quote from: viper37 on November 20, 2012, 09:39:35 AM
So, in France, gay marriage is apparently an issue as big as in some Southern US States. There was a protest (and a riot, it is France, after all :P) this week-end, and among the arguments against, it was said that "such important issues should be decided by the people, by a referendum, not by the politicians".
I think it's a nice principle. I do like the way the Americans do it, voting on a proposition at the same time as an election.
However, it can lead to some silly issues. Most voters don't want to cut services that directly affect them, most voters won't support a tax increase for them.
It's the wrong approach, though. Civil Rights and liberties designed to protect a minority can never be subjected to the will of the majority.
If we had that approach, black people still wouldn't be allowed to vote in the South.
Quote from: Valmy on November 20, 2012, 10:28:54 AM
Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 10:27:09 AM
I'm thinking specifically of minority rights, like gay marriage or allowing minorities to vote.
Ah ok. You said 'anything that relates to a minority class' not 'basic human rights of minorities' so it threw us off a bit.
There's a question of what's considered "basic human rights", so I wanted to avoid using that phrase in order to avoid having some of our more conservative members tune out at the use.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 20, 2012, 10:31:33 AM
Quote from: viper37 on November 20, 2012, 09:39:35 AM
So, in France, gay marriage is apparently an issue as big as in some Southern US States. There was a protest (and a riot, it is France, after all :P) this week-end, and among the arguments against, it was said that "such important issues should be decided by the people, by a referendum, not by the politicians".
I think it's a nice principle. I do like the way the Americans do it, voting on a proposition at the same time as an election.
However, it can lead to some silly issues. Most voters don't want to cut services that directly affect them, most voters won't support a tax increase for them.
It's the wrong approach, though. Civil Rights and liberties designed to protect a minority can never be subjected to the will of the majority.
If we had that approach, black people still wouldn't be allowed to vote in the South.
Then why did gays just get the right to marry in Maine and Maryland a couple of weeks ago?
Ultimately I think these kind of societal changes are best done with the explicit approval of society, and not when imposed from upon high. Slavery was abolished by the Emancipation Proclamation, but the south resented it for generations and continued to treat blacks very, very badly.
Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2012, 10:40:04 AM
Then why did gays just get the right to marry in Maine and Maryland a couple of weeks ago?
Ultimately I think these kind of societal changes are best done with the explicit approval of society, and not when imposed from upon high. Slavery was abolished by the Emancipation Proclamation, but the south resented it for generations and continued to treat blacks very, very badly.
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.
Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2012, 10:40:04 AM
Then why did gays just get the right to marry in Maine and Maryland a couple of weeks ago?
Ultimately I think these kind of societal changes are best done with the explicit approval of society, and not when imposed from upon high. Slavery was abolished by the Emancipation Proclamation, but the south resented it for generations and continued to treat blacks very, very badly.
If the silly Yanks had remained loyal to the Crown, slavery would have been abolished earlier and without a massive civil war, as it was in the rest of the Empire :canuck: ;)
Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2012, 10:40:04 AM
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.
QuoteUltimately I think these kind of societal changes are best done with the explicit approval of society, and not when imposed from upon high.
That's because you're a monarchist fuck.
QuoteSlavery 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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 20, 2012, 10:31:33 AM
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 20, 2012, 10:45:51 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2012, 10:40:04 AM
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.
Quote
QuoteSlavery 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. :rolleyes:
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.
Quote from: Valmy on November 20, 2012, 10:53:36 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 20, 2012, 10:31:33 AM
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. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 10:56:58 AM
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?
Quote from: Valmy on November 20, 2012, 10:53:36 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 20, 2012, 10:31:33 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on November 20, 2012, 10:58:37 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 10:56:58 AM
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. ;)
Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2012, 10:56:06 AM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 11:03:10 AM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2012, 10:56:06 AM
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. :rolleyes:
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. :contract:
Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 10:42:57 AM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2012, 10:56:06 AM
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?
Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 11:07:55 AM
Ahem. :contract:
Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 10:42:57 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on November 20, 2012, 11:04:44 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 11:03:10 AM
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. ;)
Or defending slavery would have become tied to American nationalism, giving birth to a dark nation founded on conquering the planet. :ph34r:
Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2012, 11:11:03 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 11:18:10 AM
EDIT: Were any of these left to referendum, the status quo would have held. All of these laws went against the majority.
I demand proof that the majority of the people in the US were against the Civil Rights laws, the voting rights thing, and the slavery amendments after, and during, the Civil War. The latter maybe...but I doubt it especially by 1866 when the states were voting on the amendments.
A national referendum on those things would have returned a positive result.
The only national referendum we have is the Presidential Election. LBJ was pretty solidly re-elected after he signed the Civil Rights Act. Lincoln was not tossed out after Emancipation.
Quote from: Valmy on November 20, 2012, 12:04:45 PM
Lincoln was not tossed out after Emancipation.
:lol: Good one.
Quote from: Valmy on November 20, 2012, 12:02:13 PM
I demand proof that the majority of the people in the US were against the Civil Rights laws, the voting rights thing, and the slavery amendments after, and during, the Civil War. The latter maybe...but I doubt it especially by 1866 when the states were voting on the amendments.
A national referendum on those things would have returned a positive result.
QuoteWikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964)By party and regionNote: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
It may not show that the majority of people would have voted against it in a national referendum, but it does show that there was considerable division even within the Senate and Congress. There were no national polls at the time, so it's hard to know real numbers. I do know that Iowa was split almost down the middle on the law (if I remember my Iowa history, it was something like 60-40 for) - they felt that it wasn't necessary, even though it was pretty obvious that there was a disparity between minorities and whites. Many believed that the law would be forcing the agenda of minorities down their throats, something autonomous, independent Iowans abhored. Nonetheless, the Iowan statesmen voted unianimously for the law. And this is a state that has always moved in the forefront of equal rights movements. I can only imagine how other states like Kansas, Colorado, and other more conservative states would have leaned.
No. Referendums are evil things. It is the job of politicians to make these decisions.
Don't get me wrong, I think that gay marriage is terrible and I hate gays more than anyone, but if that's what politicians want to do, that's their business. Leaders lead, voters vote, and courts muddy the waters and steal from everyone. That's the order of things.
Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 11:18:10 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2012, 11:11:03 AM
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.
I should say I'm much more receptive to change coming from elected politicians. You don't need to have referendum on every possible issue.
But like Valmy, I question whether all of those things were in fact unpopular with voters.
Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 12:18:42 PM
It may not show that the majority of people would have voted against it in a national referendum, but it does show that there was considerable division even within the Senate and Congress. There were no national polls at the time, so it's hard to know real numbers. I do know that Iowa was split almost down the middle on the law (if I remember my Iowa history, it was something like 60-40 for)
A 20% winning margin is hardly split right down the middle. Obviously the overwhelming majority of non-Southern politicians knew it had support in their states. The South is like...11 or 13 States out of 50?
Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2012, 12:28:13 PM
I should say I'm much more receptive to change coming from elected politicians. You don't need to have referendum on every possible issue.
But like Valmy, I question whether all of those things were in fact unpopular with voters.
Aside from the Wiki article that I posted, I would say that the race riots during that time period sort of indicate that it didn't go over easily.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 20, 2012, 12:06:22 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 20, 2012, 12:04:45 PM
Lincoln was not tossed out after Emancipation.
:lol: Good one.
Sometimes there can be a few disgruntled minorities :P
Quote from: Valmy on November 20, 2012, 12:30:03 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 12:18:42 PM
It may not show that the majority of people would have voted against it in a national referendum, but it does show that there was considerable division even within the Senate and Congress. There were no national polls at the time, so it's hard to know real numbers. I do know that Iowa was split almost down the middle on the law (if I remember my Iowa history, it was something like 60-40 for)
A 20% winning margin is hardly split right down the middle. Obviously the overwhelming majority of non-Southern politicians knew it had support in their states. The South is like...11 or 13 States out of 50?
My point is that while the Congress may have overwhelmingly voted for it, that doesn't mean that they had overwhelming support by their states. All they had to have was enough support to get re-elected. That doesn't necessarily equate to a majority of the nation being pro-CRA. As I said, the race riots across the country kind of indicate that it wasn't a unanimous situation.
Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 12:32:25 PM
My point is that while the Congress may have overwhelmingly voted for it, that doesn't mean that they had overwhelming support by their states. All they had to have was enough support to get re-elected. That doesn't necessarily equate to a majority of the nation being pro-CRA. As I said, the race riots across the country kind of indicate that it wasn't a unanimous situation.
First of all, yes it does. Congresspeople are cowards, there may have been a few principled souls but not between 84 and 98 percent of them. And if you are correct then in the 1964 election there should have been tons of anti-CRA candidates trying to throw them out of office. As far as the race riots go, well nobody is claiming it was unanimous.
Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 12:32:25 PM
My point is that while the Congress may have overwhelmingly voted for it, that doesn't mean that they had overwhelming support by their states. All they had to have was enough support to get re-elected. That doesn't necessarily equate to a majority of the nation being pro-CRA.
Kinda tough to get re-elected without a majority of the vote.
QuoteAs I said, the race riots across the country kind of indicate that it wasn't a unanimous situation.
No legislation, ever, in the history of humanity would have been passed without dissenting votes in a referendum. So saying it wasn't "a unanimous situation" is meaningless.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 20, 2012, 10:31:33 AM
It's the wrong approach, though. Civil Rights and liberties designed to protect a minority can never be subjected to the will of the majority.
If we had that approach, black people still wouldn't be allowed to vote in the South.
Obviously, it can't work when there are people who can't vote, or if a sizable minority is unable to read, or if a sizable minority group is actually scattered accross the territory.
There are drawbacks to this approach, I agree. I didn't say it was perfect.
Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 12:32:25 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 20, 2012, 12:30:03 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 12:18:42 PM
It may not show that the majority of people would have voted against it in a national referendum, but it does show that there was considerable division even within the Senate and Congress. There were no national polls at the time, so it's hard to know real numbers. I do know that Iowa was split almost down the middle on the law (if I remember my Iowa history, it was something like 60-40 for)
A 20% winning margin is hardly split right down the middle. Obviously the overwhelming majority of non-Southern politicians knew it had support in their states. The South is like...11 or 13 States out of 50?
My point is that while the Congress may have overwhelmingly voted for it, that doesn't mean that they had overwhelming support by their states. All they had to have was enough support to get re-elected. That doesn't necessarily equate to a majority of the nation being pro-CRA. As I said, the race riots across the country kind of indicate that it wasn't a unanimous situation.
You don't need overwhelming support in order to enact change. :mellow:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 20, 2012, 10:45:51 AM
QuoteSlavery 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.
Yeah it is odd that he picked an example which is quite at odds with his notion.
Quote from: Valmy on November 20, 2012, 12:30:03 PM
A 20% winning margin is hardly split right down the middle. Obviously the overwhelming majority of non-Southern politicians knew it had support in their states. The South is like...11 or 13 States out of 50?
How many states were there in 1865? :P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 20, 2012, 01:36:57 PM
How many states were there in 1865? :P
We are talking about 1964 here ;)
But there were 36 :smarty:
Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 01:33:15 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 20, 2012, 10:45:51 AM
QuoteSlavery 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.
Yeah it is odd that he picked an example which is quite at odds with his notion.
Lawyers. Just gotta qualify everything. Even the stupid shit.
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 11:11:18 AM
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.
actually, they thought it was benefiting them.
Free blacks = cheap labour. Cheap labour = lesser wages for the white men. This is what many were afraid of. And they probably weren't that wrong either.
Quote from: Valmy on November 20, 2012, 12:02:13 PM
I demand proof that the majority of the people in the US were against the Civil Rights laws, the voting rights thing, and the slavery amendments after, and during, the Civil War. The latter maybe...but I doubt it especially by 1866 when the states were voting on the amendments.
A national referendum on those things would have returned a positive result.
On slavery, once the war had started, I figure a near totality of northerners were against it.
Had you asked them in 1857-1858, they might have had the majority, but maybe not as much as post-war.
But it probably wouldn't matter, since any change like that would be voted on a State by State basis, not a truly popular vote accross all the country, no?
Quote from: Kleves on November 20, 2012, 12:41:02 PM
Kinda tough to get re-elected without a majority of the vote.
depends if there are more than 2 candidates.
Quote from: viper37 on November 20, 2012, 02:54:16 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 11:11:18 AM
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.
actually, they thought it was benefiting them.
Free blacks = cheap labour. Cheap labour = lesser wages for the white men. This is what many were afraid of. And they probably weren't that wrong either.
Uh, the reason wealthy whites liked slavery is that slaves as workers are cheaper than paying wages at all. :lol:
How can a free whilte worker compete in ecomomic terms with a slave?
Quote from: Valmy on November 20, 2012, 12:38:55 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 12:32:25 PM
My point is that while the Congress may have overwhelmingly voted for it, that doesn't mean that they had overwhelming support by their states. All they had to have was enough support to get re-elected. That doesn't necessarily equate to a majority of the nation being pro-CRA. As I said, the race riots across the country kind of indicate that it wasn't a unanimous situation.
First of all, yes it does. Congresspeople are cowards, there may have been a few principled souls but not between 84 and 98 percent of them. And if you are correct then in the 1964 election there should have been tons of anti-CRA candidates trying to throw them out of office. As far as the race riots go, well nobody is claiming it was unanimous.
As far as race riots go, it generally wasn't people opposed to the Civil Rights Act that were rioting.
In general, as far as referundums go, I'm opposed to them in a representative democracy. Whether not certain groups within a society are denied voting rights isn't really relevant here because the people being denied the right to elect their representatives would also be denied the right to vote on a referundum.
That said, I'm not totally opposed to the use of a referundum to decide certain basic questions, such as amending a constitution or adopting a new constitution entirely. A lot of US states undermine that idea, though, by having constitutions that instead of laying out basic principle are so overdetailed that it almost takes an amendment to hire or fire a janitor at the statehouse.
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 03:05:39 PM
Uh, the reason wealthy whites liked slavery is that slaves as workers are cheaper than paying wages at all. :lol:
How can a free whilte worker compete in ecomomic terms with a slave?
No room, board, guards, or social pressure necessary.
Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 03:33:09 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 03:05:39 PM
Uh, the reason wealthy whites liked slavery is that slaves as workers are cheaper than paying wages at all. :lol:
How can a free whilte worker compete in ecomomic terms with a slave?
No room, board, guards, or social pressure necessary.
A lot of plantation owners (the ones that unfortunately missed getting killed or having their places burned to the ground) found out after the war that it was cheaper to run a plantation with wage labor than with slave labor.
Of course, not all labor in the pre-war south was done by slaves. If you were a free man and a wage earner, if you were employed in a trade in which slaves weren't much used, you didn't want them freed and flooding the labor market. Plus, you could aspire to get ahead and someday being able to own a plantation and slaves of your own.
OTOH, the real reason that poor free whites in the south supported slavery wasn't economics; it was status. No matter how poor or downtrodden you were, if you were a free white man, you had a far, far greater social status than even the most well-treated and priviliged slave.
Quote from: dps on November 20, 2012, 03:53:53 PM
OTOH, the real reason that poor free whites in the south supported slavery wasn't economics; it was status. No matter how poor or downtrodden you were, if you were a free white man, you had a far, far greater social status than even the most well-treated and priviliged slave.
An awful lot of white trash still feel that way. "I may be poor, toothless, addicted to drugs, and beat my wife, but at least I'm not black."
I don't like them for the same reasons others have already mentioned.
Also in the current American context they are ideal vehicles for moneyed special interests to try to buy legislation they want - the Michigan bridge initiative this last cycle was a good example of that tendency.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 20, 2012, 04:32:00 PM
I don't like them for the same reasons others have already mentioned.
Also in the current American context they are ideal vehicles for moneyed special interests to try to buy legislation they want - the Michigan bridge initiative this last cycle was a good example of that tendency.
Probably not all that good of an example in that it lost.
Quote from: dps on November 20, 2012, 05:09:47 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 20, 2012, 04:32:00 PM
I don't like them for the same reasons others have already mentioned.
Also in the current American context they are ideal vehicles for moneyed special interests to try to buy legislation they want - the Michigan bridge initiative this last cycle was a good example of that tendency.
Probably not all that good of an example in that it lost.
It was close though for something so transparent.
Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 03:33:09 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 03:05:39 PM
Uh, the reason wealthy whites liked slavery is that slaves as workers are cheaper than paying wages at all. :lol:
How can a free whilte worker compete in ecomomic terms with a slave?
No room, board, guards, or social pressure necessary.
Slaves are still cheaper. Historically, plantations did not rely on employing guards, but on externalizing that cost - contracting out to slave-catchers. Plantations employed "drivers" essentially to keep an eye (and whip) on the slaves to ensure that they worked, but what kept them imprisioned was the sheer hopelessness of resistance - and certainty of being caught if they ran (in spite of that, some did run, making it all the way to Canada).
Room and board generally was provided by the slaves, who were expected, in their copious spare time, to make their own shacks and grow their own food.
In fact, one of the complaints about how harsh slavery conditions were in the new cotton plantations of the deep south was:
QuoteSlaves were driven much harder than when they had been in growing tobacco or wheat back east. Slaves had less time and opportunity to improve the quality of their lives by raising their own livestock or tending vegetable gardens, for either their own consumption or trade, as they could in the east.
The result was not that the owners were put to the expense of feeding them, but that the owners worked them to an early death through malnutrition:
QuoteThe death rate was so high that, in the first few years of hewing a plantation out of the wilderness, some planters preferred whenever possible to use rented slaves rather than their own.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#High_demand_and_smuggling
If slavery did not "pay", people would not have used it.
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 05:54:57 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 03:33:09 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 03:05:39 PM
Uh, the reason wealthy whites liked slavery is that slaves as workers are cheaper than paying wages at all. :lol:
How can a free whilte worker compete in ecomomic terms with a slave?
No room, board, guards, or social pressure necessary.
Slaves are still cheaper. Historically, plantations did not rely on employing guards, but on externalizing that cost - contracting out to slave-catchers. Plantations employed "drivers" essentially to keep an eye (and whip) on the slaves to ensure that they worked, but what kept them imprisioned was the sheer hopelessness of resistance - and certainty of being caught if they ran (in spite of that, some did run, making it all the way to Canada).
Room and board generally was provided by the slaves, who were expected, in their copious spare time, to make their own shacks and grow their own food.
In fact, one of the complaints about how harsh slavery conditions were in the new cotton plantations of the deep south was:
QuoteSlaves were driven much harder than when they had been in growing tobacco or wheat back east. Slaves had less time and opportunity to improve the quality of their lives by raising their own livestock or tending vegetable gardens, for either their own consumption or trade, as they could in the east.
The result was not that the owners were put to the expense of feeding them, but that the owners worked them to an early death through malnutrition:
QuoteThe death rate was so high that, in the first few years of hewing a plantation out of the wilderness, some planters preferred whenever possible to use rented slaves rather than their own.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#High_demand_and_smuggling
If slavery did not "pay", people would not have used it.
People "thought" that it paid. In the long run, it was economically ruinious (though more at the macro level, rather than for individual slave-owners).
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 05:54:57 PM
If slavery did not "pay", people would not have used it.
You are forgetting one important variable: resistance to change.
When you do things in a certain way for a long time, and everyone else around you is convinced there are no other way, and of course the few examples of people paying their workers are either very poor plantation owners or total failures, you get convinced your way is the right way, and no amount of rationality will convince you otherwise.
Industrialisation made things better for the average people, better than the serf system in Europe, better than being in a slave. Yet, there was resistance.
In the 80s, where plants started to robotize, there was a lot of resistance to that, people said we were creating unemployment with "robots".
Yet, would we turn back the clock?
I figure it must have been the same with slavery.
Quote from: dps on November 20, 2012, 06:36:07 PM
People "thought" that it paid. In the long run, it was economically ruinious (though more at the macro level, rather than for individual slave-owners).
What are you a communist now? Enlightened self-interest isn't interested in the macro level.
Quote from: viper37 on November 20, 2012, 08:02:05 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 05:54:57 PM
If slavery did not "pay", people would not have used it.
You are forgetting one important variable: resistance to change.
When you do things in a certain way for a long time, and everyone else around you is convinced there are no other way, and of course the few examples of people paying their workers are either very poor plantation owners or total failures, you get convinced your way is the right way, and no amount of rationality will convince you otherwise.
Industrialisation made things better for the average people, better than the serf system in Europe, better than being in a slave. Yet, there was resistance.
In the 80s, where plants started to robotize, there was a lot of resistance to that, people said we were creating unemployment with "robots".
Yet, would we turn back the clock?
I figure it must have been the same with slavery.
It was not. In fact I seem to recall studies done comparing slavery with the later sharecropping models used in the South. Slavery was much more profitable. Slavery is a bit like outsourcing labor. It's less efficient, but the low cost of labor make it more profitable. If it was legal, people would be using slaves today. Hell, in some countries, they do.
Quote from: dps on November 20, 2012, 03:30:27 PM
As far as race riots go, it generally wasn't people opposed to the Civil Rights Act that were rioting.
Oh they did plenty of rioting. Also bombing, shooting, lynching and murder. Look at the anti-busing riots they had.
Rights should not be determined by government policies. If you have a theory of rights where your rights are dependent on your government, you have a real problem.
Additionally, rights should not be determined by referenda, because rights by definition offer protections not otherwise recognized by law.
RE: slavery. Economic slavery is right now, due to low food cost and general sanitation, more profitable than it ever has been. Kevin Bales, the world's foremost leading expert, has an excellent book out there. Even if he is a lefty frootloop that doesn't believe in the right of self-defense (caveat: we had that argument when we were both extraordinarily drunk, so I may be misremembering, but I do recall that he dismissed the idea that legally excusing the murder of slaveowners by their slaves was an appropriate resolution of the problem).
I sort of like the type of referendii that are proposed by governments around the world. As Beeb mentioned, it's a nice clear-cut way of establishing a mandate for a certain policy. Not that much different from a parliamentary government dissolving and calling an election on a single issue.
What has not worked at all in practice is the citizen-initiated process such as they have in California, as Joan mentioned.
No. This is one of the rare things I agree with Maggie on. Referendums and plebiscites are the tools of autocrats.
The only exception I can think of is the constitution of a state - major changes to borders or independence and like should reflect the popular will.
Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 05:54:57 PM
If slavery did not "pay", people would not have used it.
It depends which time period you are speaking about. Initially indentured workers were cheaper. Land was plentiful and the small amount of land they would be given after their contract ended was inexpensive. But as time went on and those new land owners also began to compete for both labour and market share it become less economical. Add to that increasing economic prospects back in Europe and the price for an indentured worker become less attractive.
QuoteHistorian Robert Brugger has noted that the price of an indentured servant hovered around ten to twelve English pounds, while a healthy adult male African could be purchased from slavers for twenty-three pounds in 1674. Four years of labor from an indentured worker did cost less initially, but lifetime forced labor proved to be a cheaper proposition for the owner in the long run.
http://www.stmaryscity.org/history/Servants%20&%20Slaves.html
Quote from: dps on November 20, 2012, 06:36:07 PM
People "thought" that it paid. In the long run, it was economically ruinious (though more at the macro level, rather than for individual slave-owners).
I don't know man. Specific circumstances before the American Civil War meant it paid like hell. The cost of Southern cash crops like Tobacco and Cotton were extremely high, in fact Cotton was so high the need for cash to continue to buy it was a big factor in the Opium War IIRC. I have a hard time imagining the share cropping system after the war being more profitable, in that system not only did you have to share the crop with your tennants but cotton prices were much lower due to competition from India and the huge depression that hit the world economy in the 1870s. Before the Civil War boomtown conditions existed throughout much of the South, afterwards people were not exactly flocking southward to take advantage of the lucrative sharecropping opportunities. Sharecropping was an important thing in the post Civil War South where there was little cash money, it made the economy continue to function.
When looking at the really impressive industrial production the South managed to achieve in the Civil War, basically starting from nothing, using slave labor sometimes I really think we dodged a bullet. If people at the time had realized how amazing slavery could be in industrial production the grip of the institution would have been much tighter and much harder to get rid of. It also makes me doubt the idea that it would have died a natural death anytime soon without emancipation.
But I guess you are refering to the phenomenon that slavery tended to slow technological innovation and so forth.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 20, 2012, 08:39:20 PM
It was not. In fact I seem to recall studies done comparing slavery with the later sharecropping models used in the South. Slavery was much more profitable. Slavery is a bit like outsourcing labor. It's less efficient, but the low cost of labor make it more profitable. If it was legal, people would be using slaves today. Hell, in some countries, they do.
Yep. There is a reason the institution has been around forever. Unfortunately it works.
Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 10:42:57 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2012, 10:40:04 AM
Then why did gays just get the right to marry in Maine and Maryland a couple of weeks ago?
Ultimately I think these kind of societal changes are best done with the explicit approval of society, and not when imposed from upon high. Slavery was abolished by the Emancipation Proclamation, but the south resented it for generations and continued to treat blacks very, very badly.
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.
Yeah, it's a chicken and an egg situation. The problem with Barrister's approach is that it is all fine and dandy only if you completely disregard human lives and human tragedies that are involved in allowing the injustice to continue until the majority is against it.
And to respond to the OP, I think in 99% of cases referendums, especially at a national/state level are a bad idea. They could work in a relatively small and homogenous community, where people have, largely, similar goals and interests, but this is unworkable in most modern democracies. The point of representative democracy is that representatives are paid for the job of understanding and passing laws, not to abdicate this obligation to voters who elected them.
Referendums tend not to work. If they were a regular thing then only people who cared deeply about issues would come out to vote- all our referendums would be on ridiculous extremist ideas that only a few people care about....and some of them will pass because the "gun to the head no but I don't really give a shit" vote will be large.
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2012, 04:05:34 AM
They could work in a relatively small and homogenous community, where people have, largely, similar goals and interests, but this is unworkable in most modern democracies.
Really? That strikes me as the worst place to have them. The few people people who do not fit that community would be hopeless.
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2012, 04:00:40 AM
Yeah, it's a chicken and an egg situation. The problem with Barrister's approach is that it is all fine and dandy only if you completely disregard human lives and human tragedies that are involved in allowing the injustice to continue until the majority is against it.
I don't think BB is saying that. Injustice is never fine and dandy. The question is what is the mechanism to correct it? And if you do have mechanisms that allow the will of the majority to be trumped for justice that can be dangerous and abusable. Is fighting for justice using democratic tools really 'allowing it to continue'?
A big plus in my mind if we do use democratic tools to reform it has a legitimacy that is hard to deny.
Quote from: Valmy on November 28, 2012, 11:28:12 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2012, 04:00:40 AM
Yeah, it's a chicken and an egg situation. The problem with Barrister's approach is that it is all fine and dandy only if you completely disregard human lives and human tragedies that are involved in allowing the injustice to continue until the majority is against it.
I don't think BB is saying that. Injustice is never fine and dandy. The question is what is the mechanism to correct it? And if you do have mechanisms that allow the will of the majority to be trumped for justice that can be dangerous and abusable. Is fighting for justice using democratic tools really 'allowing it to continue'?
A big plus in my mind if we do use democratic tools to reform it has a legitimacy that is hard to deny.
Sure, but you don't, in theory at least, need a referendum to do that--legislation passed by an elected legislature works just fine, too.
Though that does lead to problems when there's a particular issue on which the legislature and the general public aren't in agreement. For example, back when the West Virginia legislature abolished the death penalty in the state, most of the population probably didn't favor getting rid of it.* The thing was, at the time, not only was West Virginia almost completely a one-party Democratic state, in most of the state, the guy who won the Democratic primary was going to be the candidate endorsed by organized labor. People were voting for their legislators based on them being pro-labor, not on their views on the death penalty. During most of the 80s at least*, voters as a whole were overwhelmingly in favor of reinstating the death penalty, but bills to do so couldn't even get out of committee because the judiciary committees of both houses in the legislature were still dominated by guys who had been there since the 60s and who all had safe seats in very pro-union areas. A lot of people sort of looked on the fact that a very few old guys were blocking the legislature from even considering the issue as illegitimate. There were jokes that there were only about 30 people in the whole state who were opposed to the death penalty, but they were all on the House or Senate judiciary committee.
* I'm not entirely sure, because I haven't really seen any polls on the issue, but my sense is that there was more sentiment among the general public in the state against the death penalty at the time it was abolished than there was in the 1980s. I do know that poll in the 80s showed that people in general were then strongly in favor of bringing it back. I didn't follow state politics as closely when I lived there again in 2002-2007, but I think that's still true.
Quote from: Valmy on November 28, 2012, 11:28:12 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2012, 04:00:40 AM
Yeah, it's a chicken and an egg situation. The problem with Barrister's approach is that it is all fine and dandy only if you completely disregard human lives and human tragedies that are involved in allowing the injustice to continue until the majority is against it.
I don't think BB is saying that. Injustice is never fine and dandy. The question is what is the mechanism to correct it? And if you do have mechanisms that allow the will of the majority to be trumped for justice that can be dangerous and abusable. Is fighting for justice using democratic tools really 'allowing it to continue'?
A big plus in my mind if we do use democratic tools to reform it has a legitimacy that is hard to deny.
But at that point, the injustice is probably unlikely to be so widespread and pervasive. After all, if the majority is against some sort of injustice, unlikely that they will be engaged in it.
Quote from: garbon on November 30, 2012, 09:54:45 AM
After all, if the majority is against some sort of injustice, unlikely that they will be engaged in it.
The majority doesn't have to be actively engaged in the injustice, though. As long as they are willing to passively allow it, it can continue.
But wouldn't that probably be a situation where the majority wouldn't be that miffed if their legislators or courts decided the issue for them?
Quote
But at that point, the injustice is probably unlikely to be so widespread and pervasive. After all, if the majority is against some sort of injustice, unlikely that they will be engaged in it.
Sort of. Indeed, I am not sure how it would be possible to do it without widespread support, at least in a Democratic society. By the time Brown vs. Board of Education came along a tipping point had already been reached (integration of the Army, Jackie Robinson, and so forth. Anybody with a brain could see segregation was on the run.). But that did not mean people were not engaged in it. Injustice was still pretty widespread and pervasive in 1954 even if people were coming around by that point.
Quote from: Valmy on November 30, 2012, 10:45:21 AM
Quote
But at that point, the injustice is probably unlikely to be so widespread and pervasive. After all, if the majority is against some sort of injustice, unlikely that they will be engaged in it.
Sort of. Indeed, I am not sure how it would be possible to do it without widespread support, at least in a Democratic society. By the time Brown vs. Board of Education came along a tipping point had already been reached (integration of the Army, Jackie Robinson, and so forth. Anybody with a brain could see segregation was on the run.). But that did not mean people were not engaged in it. Injustice was still pretty widespread and pervasive in 1954 even if people were coming around by that point.
I guess it depends on the type of injustice. For instance polls showed majority in Massachusetts was against gay marriage before it was allowed by the courts and polls several months after the courts allowed it, public opinion turned even further against legal gay marriage. Not much really happened though as I think it falls into an example of dps's where people just passively allow heterosexual marriages to be the norm and though even not in favor, don't feel that strongly to take up arms.