Chirac and Schroeder just got mugged by reality

Tempest in a teapot stuff . . . people long in power tend to pall on the public political palate (heeheeheeheeheeheehee . . . i crack me up). There is a lust among the conservatives in this country to suggest that Europe is decrepit and corrupt, and that a comuppance is due and imminent. Nothing is remarkable either in the events nor in the reaction by the right here.

I didn't know until now, how (and if) this worked/was done elsewhere outsite Europe.

I hope you don't mind, Joe that I find Lash's response better evaluated? :wink:

Sorry? I missed her reply, what was it again?

Joe(searching ...)Nation

Thank you, but I have seen this question from Walter asked on a myriad of subjects with minor adjustments.

Basically reads as,

"Who are you to think you know enough to speak on this issue. I am the only acceptable source of information on European matters, and you have no business speaking here. <sniff>"

I could find twenty such posts by that one poster if I was inclined to look. But you know that.

Disagree with someone's opinion--sure. Making them feel as if they shouldn't even venture an opinion in such a condescending way... <shakes head>

Nice that all are able to interpret my question the right way besides me.

I'd made up a summary/link collection (including until now unpublished material, I've today from Switzerland) and actually wanted to start a thread about the pro's and con's of referenda.

I'll better leave that.

No one forces Lash to read any of my post, I think .

But not to bring her again in temptation : Good bye.

She's got a point, Walter.

But by all means, do post your summary/link collection - no reason to withdraw altogether just cause you're called on something. You know that there are many of us who greatly appreciate the wealth of info you bring - and that's regardless of how we react to this or that issue of style or tone.

The info is great!

No, nimh, she doesn't have a point. In my experience, Walter has never once questioned an American poster's ability to comment on European news, and he doesn't do that here either. Here is the exchange between Walter and Lash:





Clearly, Walter was asking for information about American experiences in general with constitutional referenda. It appears that Lash, somehow, took this as a challenge to all Americans to explain how they can comment on European referenda when they don't have any experience with referenda of their own. That wasn't a point, that was a careless misreading.

Perhaps now we have some insight into the recent precipitous decline in Lash's formerly unblemished 4.0 GPA.

<shrugs> It's just I can second Lash's perception of how Walter's questions, in context, can come across as rhetorical sometimes. When posters state something Walter clearly thinks - or knows, because he often simply does know better - is wrong or ill-informed, he tends to post those questions which seem to roughly come down to "I didn't know you (people) did A, B or C" / "had read all of X, Y and Z" (links included) / "knew about 1/2/3".

I don't think its as personal as Lash makes it out to be ("I am the only acceptable source of information"), but the question here definitely seemed rhetorical again to me too (and was promptly indulged by Joe Nation, who answered that no of course, America hasnt done too well on the score itself ...). And although I share Walter's exasperation often enough and am even worse at containing my own reactions, I can imagine it gets a little grating over time. And I didnt want to let a poster be ridiculed/dismissed about her perception when I, in any case, immediately recognized what she was on about. So if she's crazy, I am too. Which of course is well possible.

But I don't want to kickstart another meta-discussion about user behaviour, did that all too often already. Too guilty myself. And in any case the slight gratingness of some of Walter's posts pales compared with the much more explicit triumphalist scorn and ridicule heaped habitually on liberals / Democrats / us here in Old Europe, so pot, kettle, all that.

Now if you'll allow me to retreat from this discussion ...

Thanks to all.

I think, I retreat as well, from discussions here.

For your viewing pleasure: Deep Throat revealed:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1371088#1371088

Walter,try reading all 85 of the Federalist papers.....some were written by John Jay, some by James Madison but most were written by Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton was an aid to Washington during his two terms as president and served as the 1st Secretary of Treasury. These papers were written to convince the people of New York that it would be in their best interests to ratify the constitution. After you read any of these papers you might be convinced that we have had some experience in what you call "referenda" of a constitution. If you read a Biography of Hamilton by Ron Chernow, you may get some idea of what America is all about.

This is a url for the Federalist papers authored by Hamilton:

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/hamilton.htm

I would think that the concept of "referendum" would not be a difficult one to master. But then statements like the foregoing convince me that it must be more challenging than I had imagined.

heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .


okbye

Joe

Would you be so kind as to PM me or email me ........ [email protected]

rayban

Thanks for the url.

For anyone reading along, who doesn't feel the climate here is amenable to asking questions--

The US has had a lot of local and state-wide referendums, but not a national one. Of course, some would say an election is a national referendum.

The Issue of a National Initiative Process
By Dennis Polhill

National referendums are a regular event among the world's democracies. With four national elections per year Switzerland has held approximately half of the 800 national referendums in world history.

One application of national referendums has been in exercising the "self determination" of a people. A referendum unified fragmented Italian states into a nation. Norway separated from Sweden in 1905 via national referendum. Only "five major democracies have never had a national referendum: India, Israel, Japan, the Netherlands, and the United States." In recent years Israel and the Netherlands have seriously contemplated the idea of a national referendum to advance intractable issues.



The demise of the Soviet Union was a byproduct of the largest national referendum in world history; the Soviet Union's first and last referendum. To advance his reforms Mikhail Gorbachev sought popular support by proposing the March 17, 1991 All-Union referendum. The All-Union Referendum would reaffirm the Union Treaty of 1922 that created the Soviet Union. The referendum opened a floodgate. The 15 Republics did not conform. Some redrafted the language; several added questions to the ballot; others declared their independence and still others boycotted the event. Although the All-Union Referendum passed overwhelmingly, periphery events turned out to be more relevant than the specific outcome. The Soviet Republics had discovered a way to articulate their frustration with central control and busily went about acting as independent states.

But has the national referendum process been abused?

The prospect of manipulation of a national referendum is real. Gorbachev directed the military to manage the election in Republics that boycotted the All-Union Referendum with the result that voter turn out approximated the local ethnic Russian population.

Hitler used national referendums to withdraw Germany from the League of Nations in 1933 and to consolidate his powers in 1934. The ability of the Nazi propaganda machine to insure the desired result is well known. This problem with referred measures was well expressed when Benito Mussolini said, "Give me the right to nominate and you can vote for whomever you please." The control of the language and what questions appear on ballots is not a minor detail. A recent example is the election held in April 2002 in Pakistan. President Musharraf clearly manipulated the wording of the referendum in order to ensure he was reelected to another five year term as President of Pakistan.

So what about national I&R in the United States?


If I&R has been a means for dealing with the conflicts at the state level, why not resolve similar national conflicts with national I&R? Lincoln is said to have proposed a national vote to reconcile slavery. There have been 3 major efforts in the U.S. for national I&R: the Progressive movement (prior to 1920), the anti-war movement (during both World Wars I and II), and the environmental movement (during the 1970s).


An early advocate for national I&R was U.S. Senator and former Colorado Governor John Shafroth. The Shafroth Amendment was proposed as an amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1914. It would have given the people of every state I&R for determining women's suffrage. When 8% of voters signed a petition, the issue would be determined by a majority vote at the next state election. Mounting pressure eventually forced Congress to deal with the issue. Had it become law, the Shafroth Amendment might very well have expedited resolution of women's suffrage. Perhaps more importantly, it would have set a precedent as a means of addressing other difficult national issues.

When the U.S. entered World War I, isolationists and pacifists called for a national referendum, arguing that only the people should decide whether to go to war. Advocates proposed an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (also called the Peace Referendum) that would have required a nationwide popular vote to go to war, unless the U.S. was attacked or invaded. A similar movement emerged during World War II but was never approved by Congress.

After World War II, the use of the statewide initiative process declined and was largely forgotten by many activists until it was rediscovered in the 1970s by the environmental movement. Coincident with rediscovery of state I&R, was a renewed interest in national I&R. Senator Abourezk (D-SD) introduced the National Voter Initiative Amendment in 1977.

The NVIA would have taken an issue to nationwide vote, when 3% of voters in at least 10 states signed a petition. A majority of voters nationwide would decide the issue. The difference between the Shafroth and the Abourezk approaches merit elaboration. Shafroth empowered the people of the states, acknowledging that the Federal government is a collection of state governments. Abourezk did not account for the division of powers between Federal and State governments itemized in the U.S. Constitution or provide a means of addressing state issues. Shafroth did not provide a means for directly resolving national concerns. A well-designed system of national I&R should do both: work within the bounds of the constitution and provide a means for addressing issues reserved to the respective Federal and State levels.

National I&R Proposals
There have been two distinct approaches to obtaining a national I&R process in the United States. One is working through the states and the other is by getting Congress to pass an amendment establishing the initiative process.


In the states, several organizations, like USPIRG, have worked hard to generate support for a national I&R process. In addition to the "PIRGs", another organization, "Philadelphia Two" has been working to establish a national initiative process. Former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel heads the group. Though their approach is somewhat controversial (basically to set up an "electoral trust" that is not accountable to the government), they are working hard to build support for a national initiative process.

At the Congressional level, between 1895 and 1943, 108 proposals to amend the U.S. Constitution by adding national I&R were submitted. Seven would have created a general I&R, that would have allowed for consideration of any issue. The others created I&R for specific issues only or that had issue-specific prohibitions. For example, Abourezk would not permit the declaring of war, calling up troops, or amending the constitution and would permit statutory modifications by Congress with a two-thirds majority or simple majority after two years. Implementation of national I&R is more complicated in the U.S. than in other nations due to the unique Constitutional division of responsibilities between the Federal and State governments. In most countries, governments are centralized to either a greater or lesser extent. Other variations of national I&R that have been proposed in the U.S. include:

The first proposal for national I&R was in 1895 by Populist Party U.S. Senator William Peffer from Kansas. It provided for a national vote on an issue when 20% of voters nationwide or 20% of state legislatures requested it.

In 1907 U.S. Representative Elmer Lincoln Fulton from Oklahoma suggested that 8% of the voters in each of 15 states could put either a constitutional amendment or statute proposal to a national vote or that 5% of the voters in each of 15 states or their state legislatures could challenge a statute passed by Congress.

In 1911 Senator Bristow from Kansas proposed that the Initiative be used to reign in the court. Any law held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court would go to a vote of the people. This was the first proposal for using I&R as the method by which to reconcile conflicts between the equal branches of the Federal government.

Socialist Party U.S. Representative Victor Berger of Wisconsin introduced the most radical proposal ever. It would have abolished the Presidency, the Senate and the Supreme Court. Five percent of the voters in three-fourths of the state could propose a law or challenge a law passed by Congress.

U.S. Senator Bob La Follette from Wisconsin in 1916 proposed a non-binding national advisory referendum that would be held when 1% of the voters in 25 states petitioned.

The National approach would require some percentage (usually in the range of 3%) of voters nationwide to sign a petition. Because elections are managed by the states and there are no national voter rolls or other election systems, leaving states out of the process would require changes in election management.

Nullification advocates in the 1980s and 1990s suggested that Federal statutes should go to a nationwide vote when 10% of the voters in 1/3 of the states sign a petition challenging it. Nullification proposals were in reaction to "unfunded mandates" and directives imposed upon the states by Congress. A nullification mechanism would effectively be a national application of the referendum petition or challenge petition.

The State's Approach to National I&R

The question of national I&R in the U.S. is not whether it will be. Rather, the question is when it will be and what form it will have. When the Confederate States wrote their constitution, they substantially replicated the constitution they had lived under for over 70 years. Perhaps the most substantial variation cured a significant structural flaw in the U.S. Constitution: how Amendments are proposed for ratification. Recognizing that a constitution is the delegation of consent to govern and, therefore, a limitation on government, and acknowledging Congress' inherent conflict of interest, the authority of Congress to draft proposed amendments was revoked. A proposed amendment would go to ratification when 25% of the states passed resolutions supporting the same proposal. This, in fact, is what the Founders had intended with Article V; but their intent was subsequently subverted by Congress.

The "States Approach" may be the best form for national I&R. The "States Approach" would permit a number of states (25%) to agree either by state initiative petition and vote or by state legislature resolution, that a question should be addressed nationally. When a number of states concur, the Federal statute (simple majority) or constitution (3/4 majority) is changed. Obviously, over-reaching Federal statutes could be stricken by the same means.

The "States Approach" acknowledges the respective constitutional roles of the State and Federal governments. It provides a means for addressing both state and national issues. It can cure both actions of omission and acts of commission by Congress and by individual state legislatures. It utilizes the existing election management systems of the states. It answers the problem of Congressional conflict of interest. It can deal with both Federal statutory or constitutional problems. It acknowledges the sovereignty of the people at every level. It might be a viable means for resolving conflicts between the equal branches of the Federal government or deadlocked Federal legislation. The fear of majoritarian abuse of I&R is reduced. National issues are resolved gradually via ongoing public debate and incremental approval by the states. A critical part of the Constitution is restored to the functionality intended by the Founders.

The "States Approach" also offers a practical means of implementation and can be achieved gradually by increasing the number of states with I&R until critical mass is reached. Critical mass is when the numbers of states with I&R is sufficient to press the issue of nationally.

National I&R in the U.S. would offer a mechanism to address national issues that partisan politics or Congressional inherent conflict of interest prohibits a solution. Several attempts have been made in Congress and in the states - but to no avail. However, as citizens enlarge their participation in their government, it appears inevitable that the U.S. will find a way to exercise this fundamental right in the near future.

Walther

I stand corrected.....I was attempting to make ratification conventions by each state synonymous with referendum. Hamilton expended considerable time and energy writing most of the Federalist papers because he expected considerable resistence to ratification.....mostly from the New York State.

Chirac didn't have a Hamiliton to convince the French people.

Chirac and Schroeder just got mugged by reality.

Perhaps Rayban the tangent man, that's because the media and the populace of those countries actually require their leaders to face reality.