5/2: Rethinking Power to the People

Illinois might be on the verge of joining over a dozen other states that have approved bans on gay marriage unions.
Who are the arch-conservatives who could get such proposal passed in this liberal state? The voters of Illinois of course.
Anti-gay issue could shake up the fall election
If a conservative interest group (the Illinois Family Institute) can acquire more than 280,000 signatures on petitions, Illinois voters will have a chance to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples only via a statewide referendum.
Such bans have never failed, even in the most liberal states (like Oregon) the proposals have won by wide margins.
Referenda, or ballot initiatives, are used to allow voters to affect policy directly creating "pure" democracy. In Illinois, voters usually have this opportunity in regards to local tax increases for schools. In other states--especially out West--voters have decided policies ranging from gay marriage to legalization of medical marijuana.
In those states, the threshold for getting such proposals on the ballot is very low sometimes requiring as few as 1,000 signatures. States like Illinois operate more as a 'republic' where the controversial issues are decided by its elected officials. Thus, Illinois has an ultra high standard requiring 280,000 signatures just to get the proposal on the ballot.
The benefit of these statewide initiatives is that it gives power to the people so that the majority can rule. Too often, controversial issues get locked up in the legislative process resulting in government doing nothing about the issues we care most about. Referenda allow the people to speak on an issue so that change can take place immediately. These ballot initiatives also help drive up voter turnout as the people feel empowered to affect change directly.
But these initiatives also point out the dangers of direct democracy. What if the majority is morally wrong? What if the majority decides to oppress the minority? A republic that relies on legislators offers safeguards that direct democracy can quickly destroy!

1 Comments:
What do we say to the seperation of church and state and the fact this very referendum seeks to not only join church and state, but to invoke a law based on morals derived from said "church?"
I'm sure the founding fathers didn't have gay marraige in mind, but the extent of it is a legal contract and to ban it seems hypocritical. Likewise, noone is saying that religious officials should have to wed gay couples if they believe its unnatural or immoral; thats why judges also have the power.
Frankly, I also have a fear of direct democracy in such controversial issues.
Post a Comment
<< Home