On Recalls and Referendums

[DaShi]

I proposed the Chinese system.

[OzzyKP]

This should be a litmus test. Any self-professed liberal who does not recognize this whole Wisconsin brouhaha as idiotic and inane is a hopelessly lost hyperpartisan, equal to the worst elements of the right.

[giblets]

There's pros and cons. We want public officials to be held accountable and not just do whatever the hell they want once they get elected; facing re-election forces them to not reneg on campaign promises, etc. But this leads to a short-term focus, a lot of empty populism and pork, etc.

Actually, I think the cons ultimately are problems with a democratic system in general.

Yes, if you start with the assumption that voters reward irresponsible decisions that are beneficial in the short term, you will probably not reach the conclusion that democracy is a good system.

[Al B. Sure!]

Yes, if you start with the assumption that voters reward irresponsible decisions that are beneficial in the short term

That 'assumption' is hardly a leap of faith.

[Elok]

Yes, if you start with the assumption that voters reward irresponsible decisions that are beneficial in the short term, you will probably not reach the conclusion that democracy is a good system.

Sure you can. Good is a relative term, and the alternatives tend to be even worse.

[The Mad Monk]

I don't see anything inherently wrong with having gubernatorial elections every two years instead of every four years. Of course, there is the possibility that voters would get tired of having so many elections but if the requirements for holding a recall are strict enough that should protect against the possibility of constant elections that voters are sick of. If you are offended by the proposition that people in positions of power should have to keep the public satisfied throughout their term and not just once every four years, you hate democracy.

Aren't you the one thinking so little of democracy that you cannot imagine the public's memory lasting four years?

[giblets]

Aren't you the one thinking so little of democracy that you cannot imagine the public's memory lasting four years?

No.

[The Mad Monk]

Oh.

[The Mad Monk]

Here's an interesting referendum...

North Dakota voters to decide on abolishing property tax
By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY

Updated 2h 52m ago

North Dakota voters will decide Tuesday on the ultimate tax revolt: abolishing the property tax altogether. A citizen-led petition drive has put the daring, all-or-nothing proposal before the voters in a state flush with tax revenue, jobs and prosperity generated by an oil boom.

If the property tax is eliminated, it would be the first time since 1980 — when oil-rich Alaska got rid of its income tax — that a state has discontinued a major tax, reports the Tax Foundation, a non-partisan research group. North Dakota would become the only state not to have a property tax, a levy the state has had since before it joined the union in 1889.

"The oil boom makes it easier to get rid of the tax, but we started this before the oil boom took off," said Charlene Nelson, chairman of Empower The Taxpayer, which is leading the tax repeal effort. "Any state would benefit from this same thing."

North Dakota's political and business establishment has lined up against the measure. The state Chamber of Commerce, farm groups, unions and most elected officials are opposed.

The property tax generates about $800 million a year in North Dakota. Except for a small share for a state medical school, the money is collected by counties and used to fund schools and local governments.

"The property tax is the foundation of local government services," said Connie Sprynczynatyk, executive director of the North Dakota League of Cities. "It's the predictable source of revenue to pay for police and fire and other local services in the community where you live."

Measure 2, as the proposal is called on the ballot, would require state government to make up for property tax revenue lost by local governments but doesn't specify how. Sprynczynatyk said this vagueness makes it uncertain if the measure can be implemented.

North Dakota's attempt to banish the property tax reflects the sparsely populated state's streak of independence and populism.

Despite hot political rhetoric, governments and voters generally tinker with long-established taxing habits — raising and lowering rates, adding and removing tax breaks — rather than attempting radical change. California's Proposition 13, a voter-approved initiative in 1978 that started a nationwide effort to limit property taxes, slashed property tax rates and limited future increases but did not end the tax.

Property taxes date to the 19th century in most states, including North Dakota.

The property tax is the most unpopular of all taxes, according to polling by the Tax Foundation.

Nelson, the tax opponent, hopes North Dakota starts a brush fire elsewhere to end - not just lower — the property tax. "The problem with reducing a tax is it's like a weed. It always grows back," she said.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-06-11/north-dakota-property-tax/55533784/1

Now, I happen to think that this is a tax reduction too far, for the reason I bolded in the article. This really flies in the face of local governance -- I mean, what the hell are they thinking?

[Imran Siddiqui]

What, is the state planning to pay for all local police and fire services? I know the article says that's the plan, but I'd love to see how they go about doing it. Hooray, you have no more property taxes, but your state income taxes just went up 100%.... ooops. Or, they underfund local police and fire services - that should go over well.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

I think it is actually very good, the rest of the US will see how that worked and will decide to follow suit or not. If the people want to self-destrutct, they should be allowed to, as long as those who do not want to participate have the right to move out. In the US this is the case (ie, they can move out) so really such moves by the public are great, giving the power to the region to do what it wants is the correct way forward.