Proposition 70 -- More California electoral entertainment

Oh, for the good old days of high school civics class, where we learned how democracy is the best form of government.  "Best" because people are entitled to govern themselves through free and fair elections in which decisions are made by a straight-forward majority vote -- one-half of the total vote, plus at least one additional vote, determines the outcome of the election.  The majority rules, not the minority.

Oddly and -- to me, at least -- inexplicably, the majority sometimes lets itself get duped into giving up majority rule in favor of rule by the few.  Proposition 70 on California's June ballot tries to make that happen once again.

If this proposition passes -- ironically, it can be passed with a simple majority vote -- then beginning in 2024 the state's revenue generated by its cap-and-trade program can be spent only with a 2/3 majority vote in the state legislature.  Cap-and-trade is California's program for discouraging business and industry from producing the carbon pollution that fouls the environment, damages peoples' health and contributes to global warming.  The program's revenues are to be spent in ways that mitigate the harm caused by this pollution.

Passage of Proposition 70 would amount to institutionalizing minority rule.  That's a recipe for gridlock and opaqueness in governance.  As it creates conditions that can empower and enrich the minority, it never ends well for the majority.

California has tried this type of minority rule before, with consistently poor results.  It used to take a 2/3 vote in the legislature to pass the annual state budget.  Unsurprisingly, the legislature was chronically late in producing a budget.  The passage of Proposition 25 in the 2010 election returned the process to a simple majority vote; since then, the state's budgets have been timely.

Compounding Proposition 70's ethical failure in promoting minority rule, and in the way it hopes that voters' memories are faulty, is the fact that it imposes itself on the state's governance not now, but six years in the future. 

Let's be real about this -- do we know what is going to be happening six years from now so accurately that we can be comfortable that the state's needs can be met in a timely fashion with this kind of legislative restriction?  We are living in a time where planning a lunch meeting for next week can seem like a strategic undertaking, so, no, I am not comfortable with that kind of restriction.

Democracy through simple majority vote instead of minority rule is of great value to me.  (I had good civics teachers in high school.)  Timeliness in the allocation of state government resources to help fix the problems of environmental pollution and global warming caused by carbon release is critical support for creating a healthy living environment in California.

These are the reasons to vote "No" on California's Proposition 70. 

The drawbacks of minority rule are by themselves enough reason to oppose this proposition, or any similar attempt to cripple the democratic process, whether it happens in California or somewhere else.

If you live in another state, or another country, and you see something like this happening in your election, then take heed of my advice:  Go ahead and be entertained by California's electoral shenanigans, but when it comes time to vote please remember my state's sorry experience with minority rule, and how that type of rule corrupts the fundamentals of democracy by minimizing the will of the majority.