New Haven Independent

Posted by: Jonas Maciunas | October 31, 2008 11:40 AM

Fake democracy? I'd have to disagree. Ballot initiatives allowing people to directly vote ye or nae on issues is absolutely democratic.

Of course, there's an assumption being made that democracy is an absolute good. After differentiating between monarchy and tyranny, oligarchy and aristocracy, Aristotle warned that pure democracy would lead to mob rule. The representative style we use instead attempts to make up for the fact that while a person is smart, people are stupid and can be guided into making foolish decisions.

Paul, I agree that we should vote against initiative and referendum, but not because it encroaches on democracy. It IS a perfect example of democracy, but as you point out, direct democracy can cripple a republic.

Posted by: Alphonse Credenza | October 31, 2008 12:39 PM

Hate is to be prohibited? Are you a prophet of love? Are citizens to be excluded from law-making because of the content of their expression? You are very much mistaken. You are free to speak as you wish, with few constraints. Why do you wish to limit others, based on their speech? Not a good basis to talk down this proposal.

The reason to defeat the proposal is the existing state Constitution's fairness, stability and, in general, clarity. This proposal will really throw a wrench into the works.

Posted by: Josh Smith | October 31, 2008 3:47 PM

I am absolutely going to vote NO on question 1. I didn't notice the Catholics running TV ads that basically say, "Wow, democracy is the best thing ever, and you should vote for it by voting yes on Election Day!" before gay marriage was allowed here. Why all of a sudden are Catholics so interested in politics, democracy, and changing the Constitution? Oh, that's right. I think we all know the answer.

Even if I was against gay marriage rights, I'd probably still vote NO on question 1, because they're being shady about it. By saying "yay, vote for democracy!" in the TV commercials they paid for, they're showing that they don't have the cojones to come out and give the real reason they want people to vote yes on the question. If you're not voting NO in support of equal rights, vote NO because of the rampant deception that's going on. At least gay rights supporters are honest about why they are voting no.

Not to mention that the lawmakers could screw up the whole Constitution by changing it, and we'd have to wait at least 20 years before it could be changed back.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | October 31, 2008 4:22 PM

Ditto on Josh Smith comment..
"Not to mention that the lawmakers could screw up the whole Constitution by changing it, and we'd have to wait at least 20 years before it could be changed back."

VOTE NO!!

Posted by: CarmenA | October 31, 2008 11:54 PM

I think I will vote yes on question one. I can not for the life of me think that a collective experience of a constitutional convention could go so far afield as to drastically change the way we do things. Does not democacy in this form provide one of the best checks?

From what I understand, there are more special interests supporting gay marriage and the NO vote. How can it get any worse?

Yes, I am voting yes for a constitutional convention, because we should not fear democracy.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | November 1, 2008 6:13 PM

The public has little say in what happens in Hartford now. There is very little common sense and an entire legislative effort beholden to special interst groups who work against the public who is too busy holding down a job to pay close attention to the endless ways they figure out how to take more money out of our pockets.

I am not going to let the threat of hate groups and the efforts of the lunatic fringe on the left or the right take away any more of my freedoms or continue to denigrate my standard of living. What these elected officials are afraid of, is that the people will rise up and limit taxes and curtail government. They ought to be concerned - they've been shoving mountains of debt and choking taxes down our throats for decades. We're sick of it. We're sick of their lame fixes that fix nothing and only make matters worse. 20% rate increases for monopolistic utilities; 15% increases in property taxes; double taxation on a gallon of gas; layered business taxes disguised as fees and the highest debt per capita of any state in the nation.

Are we better off than we were a decade ago? Are we more free? Is it easier to live in Connecticut or New Haven and raise your family than it was a decade ago? We've been given so much lip service the police chief should be making arrests in the halls of power instead of the streets and hotels of New Haven.

Posted by: Your Tax Dollars at Work | November 2, 2008 4:45 PM

After the California railroad robber barons milked California citizens because they (the robber barons) had paid off the members of the CA legislature there was a great public reaction. Initiative, referendum and recall were written into California law. Voters were finally given power to make laws and recall state officials.

So now we have Gov. Schwartzenager and several right wing initiatives written into law by the crazies in California. This is not unique California experience. Similar problems have arisen in other states having amended their constitutions to include easy access to initiative, referendum and recall.

It was a great concept. Unfortunately, the only folks uniquely interested in working for their whacko agendas have been the California right wing crazies. They've been able to appeal to an electorate by wording their legal initiatives in such a way that they appeal to the average person.
As law, these passed initiatives wreak havoc to state finances.

Conceptually, it's an appealing idea: to have a constitutional convention. Actually, the right wing crazies are the only ones really interested. They're the workers rabid enough to raise funds and get out the vote to legalize their weird agendas.

Having said all that, I wish there was an easy way to get rid of our 2 incompetent, selfish U.S. Senators.

Posted by: Westville Mom | November 3, 2008 8:20 AM

Just a thought...perhaps a Const. Convention is a natural reaction to years of gerrymandering in CT. If you look at the state legislative map, you see that the cities are all broken up and added into other towns. There is a good reason that CT is a generally "blue" state and it isn't because everyone is liberal. Gary is, I think, correct in saying that, "The public has little say in what happens in Hartford now." What is more than a little anxiety-provoking is that the Dem Party is in the process of attempting to gain total control of the country, much as it has already in CT. Gov. Rell is actually a RINO (Rep. in name only) rather than a true conservative. Dems will control (think San Fran Nanny) the Presidency, the Congress/Senate, soon-to-be Supreme Court, most Governorships, and most large cities--and the state of those cities is a harbinger of things to come.
This is not about gay marriage--this is about disenfranchised citizens trying desperately to regain at least a semblance of checks and balances in a society that has been watching American Idol rather than the nightly news and has had its representation slowly eroded.
And the fourth "branch"--the PRESS--has been largely in cahoots. This should be a golden opportunity for the press to regain its stature of the Woodward & Bernstein era as a muck-raking counter-balance to arrogance in government.
(IF it can get over its honeymoon with Obama, that is.)

Posted by: Dan Levine | November 3, 2008 11:05 PM

i moved to california from connecticut in spring 2006. the california
ballot does indeed have lots of propositions and measures, but i have
to disagree with "your tax dollars" who said it is only right wingers
who put stuff on there. yes, an anti gay marriage prop is kicking, and
an anti-abortion rights question, too. but there is also a prop that
would lower criminal penalties for non-violent drug offenders, which
is an issue that is very difficult for elected officials to address
because of the risk of being labeled "soft on crime." also there is a
question to mandate a minimum standard of humanity for farm animals.
so, it is not so one sided. and while i have been known to grumble
about the time it takes to educate myself about all these issues, in
the end, i felt the better citizen for engaging in that process. maybe
not all folks do take that time, but i think paul is wrong to argue
that the electorate should be de facto written off in its ability to
do it. with gay marriage, instead of dealing with the semantics of a
constitutional convention, as connecticut voters must, we are in the
midst of a full on civil rights debate in california. whichever way it
goes, we'll have to look each other in the eye afterward with a
healthy understanding of where we stand as a state. that's what
politics is all about.