Political Memes

1 & 2 are pretty much non-starter. This state went over 60% for Trump. Not sure what fraction of that was just the magic R or what but with that much support, I really don't want them to form an angry mob lol.

3: Eh, not really practical here but wish it was. My county elected a democrat to state legislature, but he almost immediately switched parties to republican after getting elected. City/county is a little more competitive, but they can only do so much.

4. Currently in progress lol.

5. Saving that as a last resort, but I'm stuck here for the foreseeable future.

Yeah, and I've been keeping that as an option of last resort. For a number of reasons, I'm stuck here for the foreseeable future. Figured since that's the case, I would at least continue trying to slow the descent into complete hellhole we're on. 🙃

I agree, and I'm wondering if that brings up a "hail mary" pathway for OP. If all avenues of representation have failed, could OP sue the state to allow ballot initiatives? OP said in another reply they even elected a Democrat legislator, but the legislator changed to Republican after getting into office. Did that create a valid argument that, even following the accepted pathways for representation, it is unavailable to OP, therefor with ballot initiatives also unavailable to OP, there is no representation possibly raising constitutional questions?

Yes the lawsuit would fail, but it would act as a rallying point for others which could add momentum for change.

I disagree in practice and in theory.

In practice, until we get corporate money out of politics, ballot initiatives are pretty much decided by advertising dollars. If you've got the money, you can buy any law you want with the right ad campaign.

In theory, ballot initiatives aren't democracy but populism. Ballot initiatives rely on popular vote to protect minority rights.

Let me give a little example. I always think of the exclusionary rule, implied by necessity from the Fourth Amendment: illegally obtained criminal evidence is inadmissible against the accused. That's a minoritarian right, it protects a minority of unpopular people: accused criminals.

If we voted on it, do we think we would vote to let criminals go free just because a cop made a mistake?

Suppose this question comes up on a ballot initiative in a nice liberal state such as Massachusetts, which allows ballot initiatives. It's probably going to get voted down. The liberals are going to fight it. The defense bar will fight it. They'll probably defeat it. And that's great. Democracy at work, right?

Do it again next year though. And next year. And next year. And next year. Put the squeeze on all those liberal activists going door to door making a hard get-out-the-vote pitch on behalf of accused criminals. Put the squeeze on all those defense lawyers, who make a living defending accused criminals--not traditionally wealthy people--and make them spend down their political capital. While they're busy fighting the initiative, what other special interests will have ballot initiatives that year that need to be fough, what else are they trying to jam through at the legislature hoping everyone is too distracted and tapped out by the initiative to muster the political capital to stop?

There are plenty of cherished minority rights that are not popular when put to the masses, but essential to those few who benefit from them.

In sum, ballot initiatives = populism, not democracy.