Matthew S. wrote (about merging rival initiatives):
>Actually, I think your "elites" would like it: instead of fighting
>one initiative with another on the same ballot, and then fighting it
>out in court to have the other overturned if both win, but their
>"more moderate" one gets more votes, they can have multiple options
>and spend money trying to get their option chosen by the most
So, campaign cost and finance reforms would impact the desirability
of state-forced merging.
Sounds like a small difference, though, since the well-heeled would
spend similar money on their separate initiative. They win either
way, if they "buy" more votes than the rival.