>Steve E. asked:
>>Do you think there'd be serious opposition to multiproposal (via
>>Condorcet ballot) Initiative reform?
Another wrinkle I've been thinking about would give power to the
Sec'y of State (or other appropriate nonpartisan body) to convert
separate rival initiatives into a combined ranked initiative. (NOTB
or its equivalent must also be included as one of the choices, of
I can imagine this power being abused, but it could also be used to
clean up the initiative process. The existing process allows two or
more partially or wholly competing initiatives to both be approved,
leaving a mess to be tidied up by the courts. Only one could win
when they're combined.
This item might produce a net savings for the state, but it would be
impossible to estimate.
Yes, the fairest & most rational way to deal with competing, mutually
contradictory, initiatives would be to combine them, & NOTB, in 1
rank-balloting public vote.
Under the current system, the voter who wants to make sure that
at least 1 of several good initiatives passes (& beats the inevitable
phoney) must vote for both (all) of them, with no way to indicate
preference between them.
Not that we're even given real multi-alternative choices, among
proposals or policies, to vote on anyway now, though we should be.
That would be a step most of the way toward complete direct democracy,
removing the very weak link known as the politician.
It's true that, since the public can't be as easily bribed or bought,
there are interests who'd fight very hard against giving the public
a more genuine choice among alternative proposals & policies. What
difference does it make what the people want if whomever they elect
can be counted on to do what his/her contributors want instead?