Thursday, December 8

Binding or Non-binding Referendum

A referendum is a direct vote in which an entire electorate is asked to either accept or reject a particular proposal. Even though the voters rejected the wheel taxes by a binding referendum, the result were not respected.

The key word here is "Binding". This means that the government is legally obligated to abide by the results of the referendums –– whether it wants to or not. The word "binding" means that what the people say is "binding" ... ON THE GOVERNMENT.

Are there provisions in the statutes for the local legislative body to override the binding referendum? NO!!!!

After citizens in a county election voted down a proposed wheel tax in Hardin County, the County Commission, in direct violation of Article I of the Constitution, unilaterally set aside the election results and passed another resolution for the wheel tax increase again, without a referendum.

Once the people says you can’t do it, the county cannot say, yes we can. The binding referendum passage denied the local legislature the authority to levy the tax.

Regardless of what the politicians and the bureaucrats want, if the people vote for or against it, it becomes the law of the land. The final power is with the people. They are higher than any branch of government.

Perceived Flaw of the Referendum

A perceived flaw of the referendum process is that in some circumstances the democratic spirit of the referendum may be flouted by the repeated submission to the referendum of a proposal until it is eventually endorsed, perhaps due to a low turn-out or public fatigue with the issue.

This is especially a problem where a proposal may be difficult to reverse, as in a tax increase. The repeated holding of a referendum on a single issue has been pejoratively referred to as the phenomenon of the "never-end-um".

How Did We Let this Happen

Governments have become increasingly less responsive to our legitimate needs and wishes, and more inclined toward high-handed, oppressive control. Our vaunted system of "representative democracy" has failed to guarantee the well-being or respect of the people. Instead it has become the servant of the "special interest" groups, the result being increased profits for them, but increased social problems for us.

How did we let this happen? For one thing, we stopped thinking of ourselves as citizens, and co-creators of public policy, and instead became consumers, happily leaving the big decisions for governments to sort out, while we all went shopping. Slowly, as we settled into denial, becoming used to the perks, raises and rewards we got for being good little cogs in the big machine, by the very system that was buying us off so effectively.

We fell asleep at the wheel, forgetting what real democracy was, happily buying the Big Lie that this IS democracy, when in fact it is only a pale imitation. Year after year, government after government, betrayal after betrayal, one stupid decision after another, we heard the same story: that if we don’t like it, we can vote for the "opposition" next time around. That was our "democratic" chance to correct the noxious blunders of the previous government. Unfortunately it never really worked out that way.

Most politicians pay lip service to the "idea" of democracy, but when it comes down to the crunch, most of them just follow the party executive, and a small group of non-elected people and corporate lobbyists who shape policy.

Those who consider themselves "in power" usually hate real democracy because that means actually sharing "their" power with the people. All too often they fail to realize that it’s the people who pay their salaries, and for whom they are supposed to be working. And since "power" and not "justice" or "doing the right thing" is the name of the game, they naturally tend to crave that power, and then hoard it.

Along the way our political masters (and their tame pundits,) tend to twist logic, common sense and indeed the English language into contortions worthy of a Lewis Carroll novel.

First they contend that despite the evidence to the contrary, our current system of "representative democracy" is in fact "democracy". Then, when pressed to explain how it can possibly be the real thing, when "democracy" means the rule of the people, they then argue that if it isn’t really the real thing, then it is as near to the ideal as we can possibly get. End of story.

It may be distressing for some to ponder, but real power in this county rests with the executive branch, and to the elites to whom they, in turn, answer. It does not rest with the people. If it did, then how does one explain the systematic betrayal of the authentic, expressed wishes of the majority of the people? Face it. We live in an elected dictatorship.

The fact is that in the 21st century "representative democracy" is an oxymoron –– a contradiction in terms. Democracy means that the people get to rule themselves, make their own laws. Pure and simple.

Can We "The People" Really Be Trusted?

People in general think of "themselves" as trustworthy, able to think things through and discuss things rationally.

It’s just the "other people" who we’re not so sure of, never ourselves.. However, everyone is the "other people" to someone else. People who find themselves high up on the power pyramid like to make everyone else believe that only they –– "the experts" –– can be trusted, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

But we have reached the stage where after decades of betrayal by the elite, people are finally realizing how they have been unscrupulously manipulated and coerced. We are finally waking up to how badly run "the system" really is, and how seriously unbalanced and destructive it has become.

And as we begin to awaken we also begin to trust our own better judgment, our logic, and our common sense. Indeed, history has shown that we, the people, most certainly can be trusted to make the right political and economic decisions –– when given all the facts and the arguments in a free and open debate.

Can the people be "bought off" by big money and the advertising it can buy? A careful reading of past referendums shows that "big money" has more influence in "representative democracies" than it does in binding citizens’ initiated referendums. We are learning that it is the politicians who cannot be trusted to make the right decisions for the people, preferring as they often do to cater to special interests who not only "own" the party in power, but the "loyal opposition" as well.

When we are told by those who hate the idea of real democracy that we can’t be trusted to make the "correct" political decisions, what they mean is that we can’t be trusted to make the same decisions that they would make.

Can the people make a mistake, a wrong decision in a Binding Referendum? Of course we can. However, even if sometimes we make mistakes, they are certainly no worse than the mistakes made by our so-called "representatives".

Definitions

A de facto government is defined internationally (for instance by the World Bank) as a government that has taken power in the absence of, or in disregard to, a constitution approved by a vote of the people
A constitution is properly defined as a Charter of Government Deriving its Whole Authority from the Governed. (Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Ed)