|
Tuesday, October 7, 2003
Previous topic
|
Next topic
|
|
 Tuesday, October 7, 2003
started 10/7/2003; 12:00:46 PM - last post 10/7/2003; 4:05:25 PM
|
|
Doc Searls - Tuesday, October 7, 2003 
10/7/2003; 4:00:46 PM (reads: 6524, responses: 11)
|
|
BloggerCon and beyond 
| | Bottom line on BloggerCon: It was one of the best conferences I've ever attended — and I go to a lot of conferences. |
| | Others (see below) give a lot of reasons why. I'll add one that others might not point out, and that's the academic environment. The conference was held at Harvard, on campus, in Cambridge. A lot of Berkman Fellows were there, plus (especially on Day Two) teachers and students who know how to lead and participate in lively intellectual discussions. It was a privilege and a delight, for example, to be part of a Day Two seminar on copyright law, led by "Profblogger" Eugene Volokh, leading co-conspirator of the eponymous blawg. |
| | There's some bad HTML in there (I think, not sure) and I don't have time to find it. So I'll let the list stand in its screwed state for now, and trust ya'll to follow the links to folks I've neglected to include. There are many. |
Politics are converations too
| | Required reading: An Open Letter to Paul Krugman, by Arnold Kling. As usual, Arnold is tough and direct but also, above all, reasonable and open. A rare combination. (Also, it seems to me, more like you'll find with a blogger than a pulpitizing pontificator — which is, to be only slightly unfair, what op-ed columnists are paid to be.) |
| | Arnold makes a very useful and interesting distinction between "Type C" and "Type M" arguments. One is about consequences, the other about motivation. He believes the latter lowers the level of discourse. And he's right. Type M arguments are usually passive-aggressive flamage, when you get right down to it. |
Beyond channels
| | What if there were not a finite number of available radio and TV channels? What then? |
| | Well, we're gonna have that, thanks to the Net, whether the FCC, the RIAA, the broadcasting industries or anyone else likes it or not. Satellite radio is just the start. |
Remembering democracy
| | I'm voting against the recall today. Not because I like Gray Davis as a governor (I don't), but because the law making the recall possible is a terrible one and needs to be changed. |
| | As written, the incumbent governor can get 49.9% of the vote and still lose to a challenger getting 13% of the vote. That's a recipe for minority rule, and it's wrong. |
discuss
|
|
Dave Aiello - Re: Remembering democracy
10/7/2003; 5:45:59 PM (reads: 1455, responses: 10)
|
|
|
The law making recall possible is the Constitution of the State of California. I found it by Googling "California constitution recall". It looks like you need to get rid of Article 2 Section 15, if you don't want recalls to work this way.
I didn't have time to read the constitution any further. Can it be amended by a ballot initiative?
discuss
|
|
Doc Searls - Re: Remembering democracy
10/7/2003; 7:58:29 PM (reads: 830, responses: 8)
|
|
|
Good point. I think we need to amend the constitution.
While we're at it, I think the ballot initiative system also needs to be junked. It's caused more harm than good, IMHO. Witness Arnold's own Prop 49, which mandated spending for which there's no money.
This kinda stuff brings out the libertarian in me.
discuss
|
|
Richard Bennett - Re: Remembering democracy
10/7/2003; 8:05:25 PM (reads: 890, responses: 0)
|
|
|
The recall statute was enacted as a constitutional amendment by the voters in 1911, and it can be amended again by the same means; this is similar to a ballot initiative in that it has to be approved by the voters, but it's different in terms of qualifying.
I don't personally think the voters will be inclined to adopt the amendment suggested by Mr. Searls, as the recall question needs to be separate from the replacement question. A run-off system would drag out the time the incumbent would be allowed to remain in office, so overall it would not be a good thing.
The most intelligent way to understand the recall is to look at the whole picture: Davis was elected by a plurality (47.3%), he can only be removed by a majority, and his replacement will also be elected by a plurality.
To claim this process is "un-democratic" is to define the term in a very interesting manner indeed.
discuss
|
|
Richard Bennett - Re: Remembering democracy
10/7/2003; 8:42:51 PM (reads: 905, responses: 7)
|
|
|
Wouldn't junking the initiative system take power from the people and give it to the politicians?
That sounds awfully "un-democratic", even if it were good government.
discuss
|
|
Evan Hunt - Re: Remembering democracy
10/7/2003; 10:24:09 PM (reads: 946, responses: 6)
|
|
|
For some time now, the initiative system has been dominated by wealthy interests that can afford to hire people to stand in front of supermarkets and gather signatures. Oftentimes these people are working both sides of an issue--during the recent push for the recall, for example, I was asked several times if I wanted to sign the petition to recall Governor Davis, and when I said no, I was immediately asked if I wanted to sign the petition *not* to recall Governor Davis.
If it were just dedicated volunteers gathering signatures, as I think was envisioned when the process was set up during the progressive reform era, it would be a different matter--but as things stand, a millionaire can pretty much get any initiative s/he wants on the ballot, while those of us with a bit less in the bank face a much steeper climb. And that's not even getting into the matter of advertising money. So it's hard to see initiatives as a really "democratic" (with a small d) institution anymore.
Worse, initiatives take precedence over all other state laws, and can't be repealed or even amended without passing a whole new initiative. Some yutz makes up a law, gets a bunch of signatures, and then that's it--yes or no--no deliberation, no fixing up unclear language, no amending it to drop a controversial section or add a better idea that came along during the debate. If people vote yes because they generally like the idea of the proposition even though it has flaws, the legislature is hamstrung when it comes to fixing the flaws. It's really not a very good way to run a government.
But I see no hope of California getting rid of it. At best, maybe we can reform the system. Banning paid signature gatherers would be a start, if it's constitutional to do so.
discuss
|
|
Richard Bennett - Re: Remembering democracy
10/7/2003; 11:28:41 PM (reads: 1014, responses: 5)
|
|
|
One recent intitiative banned the sale of horsemeat for human consumption, another mandated treatment over jail time for non-violent drug offenders, and another legalized marijuana for medicinal purposes.
Big money special interests or direct democracy?
discuss
|
|
Doc Searls - Re: Remembering democracy
10/8/2003; 1:02:18 PM (reads: 1132, responses: 4)
|
|
|
Neither. My problem with the initiative system isn't that it's direct, but that its consequences are so hard to unscrew. I think it's easier to recall Gov. Schwarzenegger than to repeal Prop fill-in-the-blank.
But hey, two props went down with Davis yesterday. And at least the new gov won by a hearty margin. He's what the people want. Let's see what he can do.
discuss
|
|
Richard Bennett - Re: Remembering democracy
10/8/2003; 3:32:30 PM (reads: 1205, responses: 3)
|
|
|
I think it's easier to recall Gov. Schwarzenegger than to repeal Prop fill-in-the-blank.
Actually, it's not. It takes 12% to qualify a recall, and only 3% to qualify a ballot prop. The overwhelming majority of ballot props fail, as the people's instinct is to vote "no" unless they've got a really good reason not to.
In a state where the (ultra-left) political machines dominate the legislature, the initiative process, for all its warts, is a vital necessity.
discuss
|
|
adamsj - Re: Remembering democracy
10/8/2003; 8:22:26 PM (reads: 1311, responses: 1)
|
|
|
Richard,
If the ultra-left machines really ran the legislature, initiatives such as Prop. 215--the medical marijuana initiative, which you mention before--wouldn't have been necessary. They'd've been passed by the legislature.
And in answer to your question:
Yes, Prop. 215 was a special interest proposition backed by big money interests (I'm thinking of George Soros here.)
It was a good result, and I'm glad it's the law, but that doesn't mean I have to approve of the process by which it was achieved. I happen to think that LBJ was, all in all, the greatest president in my lifetime, and JFK (along with RWR) the most overrated.
That doesn't make me a Lee Harvey Oswald fan.
discuss
|
|
Phil Wolff - Re: Remembering democracy
10/13/2003; 3:05:10 AM (reads: 1383, responses: 0)
|
|
|
Richard, I've followed your thoughtful postings here and elsewhere and I'm pretty sure Atilla the Hun was too liberal for your taste.
I agree with the others that recall could use tuning. I wouldn't mind seeing the recall process replaced with an impeachment process. Malfeasance, fraud, corruption, or commission of another felony are great reasons to pitch an elected official out of office. The people's momentary inflamations, infatuations, and name calling just aren't cause enough for aborting an elected term.
Remember the reasons for having long terms for government executives. It takes time to learn the job. And many programs take years to supervise and produce results. Didn't the founding fathers think along those lines?
discuss
|
|
Doc Searls - Re: Remembering democracy
10/15/2003; 5:00:28 AM (reads: 1271, responses: 0)
|
|
|
Thanks for the corrective stats.
I'm not sure I'd characterize the political machines as 'ultra-left', but that's a quibble. The legislature, by whatever characterization, has clearly made the state a bad place for business.
As for the initiative process, we disagree. But I do understand their appeal. And I hope Arnie delivers. He bit off more than he can eschew, and maybe that's a good thing.
discuss
|
|
|
Copyright 2009 The Doc Searls Weblog
|
