SR V: To boldly go where no room has gone before

I just realized that California is an example of why direct democracy doesn't work.

LinusW wrote: TGM: Orb wrote: Fwubbahl Exams the first over... just the 4 or 5 to go. Ah yes. 4 or 5 more chances to fail, young sir. Pessimism. It's a lifestyle.

Happy people just don't understand.

KoS wrote: LinusW wrote: TGM: Orb wrote: Fwubbahl Exams the first over... just the 4 or 5 to go. Ah yes. 4 or 5 more chances to fail, young sir. Pessimism. It's a lifestyle. Happy people just don't understand.

Always prepare for the worst - that way you're never disappointed.
Super duper ultra defence mechanism. 

Ricochet wrote: Pessimist says "It can't get worst than this", optimist replies "Yes, it can".

*giggle*

LinusW wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: Hey, Linus. What's up? Just chillin' And you?

Same here.

LinusW wrote: KoS wrote: I just realized that California is an example of why direct democracy doesn't work. Elaborate.

The California constitution sets up a direct democracy. Propositions and amendments are ratified by the majority. One of the results of this is Prop 13, which limits property taxes. One of the results of this prop was that houses in the same neighborhood had different tax rates. I could be paying 2009 rates while my neighbor could be paying 1978 rates. Now this proposition makes it harder to raise property taxes, so politician's have to raise other taxes.  The US Supreme Court even called the proposition "distasteful and unwise." This also sets the precedent for the budget crisis. People want more social services but do not want taxes to go higher.
 Things like same sex marriage are put to vote by the majority. The founding fathers were very critical of majority rule, that's why the Constitution is so hard to amend. The majority isn't always in the right. California needs a new constitution but I'm doubtful that will happen.


Edited by KoS - June 11 2009 at 17:48

MovingPictures07 wrote: KoS wrote: LinusW wrote: KoS wrote: I just realized that California is an example of why direct democracy doesn't work. Elaborate. The California constitution sets up a direct democracy. Propositions and amendments are ratified by the majority. One of the results of this is Prop 13, which limits property taxes. One of the results of this prop was that houses in the same neighborhood had different tax rates. I could be paying 2009 rates while my neighbor could be paying 1978 rates. Now this proposition makes it harder to raise property taxes, so politician's have to raise other taxes.  The US Supreme Court even called the proposition "distasteful and unwise." This also sets the precedent for the budget crisis. People want more social services but do not want taxes to go higher. The 2/3 rule means that things like same sex marriage are put to vote by the majority. The founding fathers were very critical of majority rule, that's why the Constitution is so hard to amend. The majority isn't always in the right. California needs a new constitution but I'm doubtful that will happen. For very good reason. In fact, the majority oft do not know what they're doing. That's the problem.

Ah. That old problem. I agree, but I'm very critical to the democratic deficit that it would create. Elitism has its benefits, but it just won't be an accurate representation of the people, no matter how you look at it.

I'd say the "dumb majority"-question is more an educational failure than an inherent democratic one.  

Hey guys....

How do you say that something is technical, but with the "icity" (Eg: simplicity)

KoS wrote: The Quiet One wrote: Hey guys.... How do you say that something is technical, but with the "icity" (Eg: simplicity) complexity Technically intricacy close enough.

But I mean for describing a band? (wait, I will take the part from my review that I want to correct)

"DT which demonstrates that they're not all just about technicity" Techincality?


Edited by The Quiet One - June 11 2009 at 18:25