StudioGlyphic

In the last ten minutes of the Dean-Nader debate I mentioned last week, the host stated that only half the country voted in the 2000 election, and asked the debaters how they would get more people to vote. Nader suggested making Election Day a holiday, same-day voter registration, proportional representation, more candidates, more initiatives, and "binding none of the above." If binding none of the above got more votes than any candidate, then a new election would be held.

Dean strenuously disagreed with Nader's last two proposals. For binding none of the above, he said that we lived in the real world and that people needed to make real choices. Picking none of the above shirks that responsibility. I think Dean makes a good point, and as a practical matter, leaving open the option of holding multiple elections to decide the same offices seems a waste of money. Furthermore, Nader has suggested we implement instant run-off voting, which would seem to be incompatible with this binding none of the above idea.

As for the initiatives, Dean said that the referendum process represented the tyranny of the majority, and that Vermont would not have supported adopting civil unions if it had been left up to a referendum. He went on to cite the initiatives in several states that led to gay marriage bans, denying gay couples the benefits, rights, and responsibilities of straight couples.

I would add that the referendum process is a flawed way to make law. Ballot initiatives are simplistic and inflexible; yes or no votes for a change in the law that may have both good and bad aspects.

For instance, California's Prop 13 protects individuals from property taxes rising above their means to pay, but it provides the same protection to large corporations. Since property owned by individuals changes hands relatively frequently, individuals end up bearing a growing share of the property tax burden. The three strikes initiative was too broad--putting some people away for 20 years for a third, but minor, offense. Other initiatives have locked up the budget, giving our representatives little control over how our funds are allocated, no matter what the economy or current needs are. This is the problem.

In the normal legislative process, we could discuss the proposal and say, "Hey, let's protect individuals on their first homes, but not the corporations or some wealthy person's second home," and then leave some flexibility for adjusting the property tax rate for these other circumstances if there's an insane rise in property prices or the economy's going through a slowdown. In the initiative process, we can't.

Furthermore, initiatives tend to bring out the interest groups and single-issue voters, and thus skews the perception of what the voters want. Nader is dead wrong on this one.