Let me put it this way, if you go out to a nice dinner with a group of 6 people, do you think the 3 people that plan on ordering Steak & Lobster should be able to determine that the entire group is splitting the bill equally? Should the people that just order a salad & water be forced to subsidize the Steak & Lobster of the other people, even though they are not eating that food? Do you think the people would have ordered the Steak & Lobster if they were under the impression that they would have to pay for the entire thing instead of the other people at the table being forced to pay for part of it?

It’s interesting that you believe supermajorities can be imposed by simple majority vote, but think that taxes should only be raised by vote of the people who would directly pay that tax. By extension, I suppose only people who smoke should decide whether there is a tax on cigarettes, and only people who drink should decide if there is a tax on alcoholic beverages.

It seems to me you are happy to write procedural rules that will produce the policy results you want, instead of adopting neutral rules, and letting the consequences be the consequences. Ironically, this is the same charge you make about redistricting. Your devotion to neutral process seems to vary by whether it benefits you.

I dont believe all politicians are that bad, but i believe enough well meaning people start off with the best of intentions, then they get to Sacramento and realize they can either stick with their principles and be ineffective, or play the game and atleast get some of what they want out of their time there, so they are forced to compromise their beliefs.

If the majority of Voters vote for something, the so be it. The fact that the voters will vote a safeguard into law, then the politicians will turn around and put it right back on the ballot is ridiculous. They are basically telling the voters that they are stupid and they dont know what they are doing. The legislators have their chance to make rules, if they fail to do it or if they are abusing their power, the people will step in and do it themselves. The legislators shouldnt be resubmitting petitions to contradict what the voters just decided on.

The fact that there is a substantial amount of voters do not end up paying any income taxes kind of skews the game against those people that do pay taxes. If someone is given the option to increase the taxes on someone else in order to provide themself with something for free, they are going to vote for that tax. In order for that kind of tax to go through, you would need well under half of thevpeople who actually have to pay that tax to vote in favor of it, if a simply majority is all that is required. That means there is not a fair representation given to the people who are the ones who have money at stake. And no, i am not saying that low income people shouldnt be able to vote, so no trying to put words in my mouth. It would just be easier to argue for a simple majority if everyone had an equal proportion of money at stake. People are going to be much more generous in distributing money that belongs to someone else, especially when it will benefit them in some way.

The 2/3 requirement just ensures that the minority group is not completely ignored during the rule making process since they are also going to be living by those rules. All it does is force some cooperation & concessions between parties instead of just a party line vote every time.

Do you personally know any state legislators? They are not quite the evil, selfish people you suggest. Some are better than others, but many are sincere, dedicated people who work quite hard to listen to the people of their districts, and do what they think is in the long-term best interest of the state.

I am baffled as to why you think that when the people adopted a redistricting commission, that was the will of the people, but if the people were to adopt a different system, that would be “circumventing” the will of the people. People are allowed to change their minds, aren’t they? If you think having districts drawn by a commission is a good idea, fine; but it makes no sense to argue that once people adopt a commission, they can never change their minds about it. Prop 11 was approved by 50.8% to 49.2%. It was hardly a giant mandate.

As for why it is unfair for rules imposing supermajorities to be adopted by simple majorities, I would just ask if you think it would be fair if 51% voted to double your taxes, and also require a 2/3 vote to lower them in the future. Would that process be okay with you? What if 51% were to abolish the redistricting commission, and require a 2/3 vote to ever adopt one again? I doubt that would be okay with you. And indeed it would be unfair. But it is equally unfair for any other supermajority requirement to be adopted by a simple majority vote. It is the theft of democracy, and California should stop it.

If it was truley supposed to be a representative government, they would have political districts that are a true representation of a geographic area. They wouldnt have these districts carved and manipulated in ways that make no geographic sense, just to ensure they get a high percentage of one specific party so they have a “safe” district. If it was truley a representative government, then why would the politicians (many of which happen to be in safe districts) be funding a proposition to overturn an initiative that would have the districts redrawn? That initiative was one passed by the voters of California, and is an accurate representation of the will of the people, but the politicians are trying to circumvent the will of the people in order to preserve their current system of guarenteed seats. That sounds like they have a stacked deck and they want to keep it that way. That doesnt sound like they want to give people the ability to truley govern themselves.

Most of the stuff they vote on is only a simple majority anyway, the 2/3 rule is just for taxes and the budget. It was a majority of voters that chose to add the 2/3 requirement, so why is a majority opinion in this instance not good enough for you? The representatives lost the trust of the voters, so the voters had to add a safeguard into our taxing & spending policies to ensure that they didnt continue to abuse the taxpayers.

Heck, why even have an elected government at all? Would it be okay with you to abolish elected offices altogether, and have a king or an emperor, as long as it meant your taxes would go down? Since you already are denying your fellow citizens the right to majority rule, why not take it all the way?

In their first term they just keep a low profile on hot button issues & scream really loud if they direct some pork to their district, so they can get elected to a 2nd term. One they are termed out they really couldnt care less what their constituants say since they are no longer useful to their political career. They will most likely be trying for a statewide or national position if they have any political value left, and as long as they made the party bosses & some big campaign contributers happy, they dont need to worry too much about a few little people that may be pissed in their home district. If they cant latch on to another position in politics, they can just take their pension & benefits and go home happy.

They take a portion of my right to pursue happiness from me every week on payday, and at the store, and at DMV, and at the gas pump, etc. Hell, thats supposed to be a God given right too! I dont think our wonderful politicians in Sacramento plan on giving back either of those rights anytime soon buddy. We can always hope though!

What makes you think things would be better if the veto power was in the hands of 19 people instead of 14?

As to CalWatchDog’s comment, other than Maldonado and possibly Roger Niello, please tell me which other legislative Republicans have NOT signed the no tax pledge.