Vote or we'll make you vote: an initial reaction to Prop. 16's ad

Back on April 1 (no foolin') I saw an ad on TV that morning in support of a proposition coming up in the June primary election. Knowing nothing more about Proposition 16 than what I saw in 30 seconds I composed the following on the train ride in to work. With that election now only days away it seems worth sharing, to let those who are behind the commercial how effective it was.

~

There's an initiative on the upcoming ballet where if it passes it would require any takeover of a power company by the government would require a 2/3 majority of voters to approve. The commercial on TV I saw closed with the rationale that such a decision should be up to the voters, as we'll be the ones paying for it.

Well, technically it would be the taxpayers who would be footing the bill, and only a percentage of that group actually vote, but I see where they're going with it.

The movement to put such a topic on the ballet seems to have been motivated by dismay over the government allocating funds without the direct approval of the voting public. In a democratic society it does seem fair to have some say in how the tax money collected by the government are spent.

Of course, ours is not a democracy but a republic, where one's input is achieved through elected representatives in the government, so conceivably the way such a process should occur would be that if one had a specific opinion regarding whether tax money should be used to bail out a major utility company one would tell one's representative, and he or she would gauge the level of support or opposition to the topic in the district and issue a recommendation to those making the decision on that basis. However, that is more likely to be a reflection of those who are most vocal about it (either pro or con), which may or may not be the view of a majority of those in the district.

Voting is flawed in that it only tracks the figurative voices of those who actually participate, but conceivably that collects more opinions than would relying on people to actually contact their representatives.



Still, by forcing such decisions to go to a vote there must be an election, there must be sample ballots printed up and mailed, there must be ads to try to sway the voters one way or the other. It's a fair amount of effort and expense in order to get that direct input from the voting public. Will that public have a sufficiently informed opinion on what may be a complex scenario? One likes to believe that would be the case, but I'm not sure I could say I actually believe that. Because in order to have an informed opinion one would still need to rely on… those who have some expertise in the matter. So it's back to being a matter of whose voices is loudest (in this case in the way it convinces more of the voters to believe that viewpoint).

Out of the millions and millions of us in this country, there's still a small percentage who devote themselves to the task of really investigating the issues. And those relative few tend to be people with a vested interest, one way or the other, in the issue; those who have something to gain from having a bill pass or fail are the most interested in it.

And then there's the pundits, who may or may not really know anything about the issue but grasp what the party line is for a given issue.

So it's a question of what makes more sense for governing massive amounts of people: admirable idealism or practical cynicism. Obviously we should want decisions to be such that the public gets a direct say in them, but determining what's actually best may not be well-served by a too-many-cooks process. What's required is taking a long, hard look at all sides of an issue, analyzing the probably benefits and consequences in light of the circumstances, and making a tough decision that may not be in one's own best interest but is ultimately what is best for all involved. That likely will be flawed, hampered by compromise, perhaps the lesser of two proverbial evils, and ultimately pleasing none of the people none of the time, but that may what comes closest to "a more perfect union," given the nature of societies as tremendous as the ones we have in the world. 

Is that something that's likely to be achieved by soliciting the opinions of millions who are not specifically required to take all those nuanced factors into consideration, who may be voting out of kneejerk emotion, who may be parroting the biased viewpoint of pundits, or who may be making that decision by haphazard methods such as flipping a coin? And all so we can maintain the appearance of principle?

I fully admit I waffle on this. It's tricky to say who I distrust the least: the stupidity of the government or the stupidity of the public.

I'm not suggesting that we should abandon elections—that's how we get to say who represents us—or that we should never allow some decisions to be made by popular vote on an initiative, but this one seems to be making our own bed.

It's not that we'll get to vote on such a decision from now on; we'll be obligated to vote on it. Whether we care or even we understand why.

Part of glory of representation is that we get to let someone else do the hard work. Everything is easy when you personally do not have to do it.

~

Remember, that's what came to mind after a single viewing of the commercial a couple months ago. Only later did I get to read the fine print and notice who was paying for the ads: Pacific Gas and Electric.

Hmm... yes, I'm sure a power company would be objective about this, having the voters best interests at heart.

But this was more a rumination on the general idea than an exploration of the specific proposition, so let's not go there. It's pretty clear the sponsors in favor of Prop. 16 don't want us paying attention to that.