1/6     Schwarzenegger proposes introducing democracy to California.
        http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/06/national/06arnold.html
        Could the rest of the U.S. be next?
        \_ As much as I agree with his proposals, I'm a little worried about
           the appeal to legislation by direct democracy.  We have a republic
           for a reason--though I think the republic model is hurting right
           now, and this may be the way to shock it back to being useful.
           \_ What advantage does the republic model have?  The only one I can
              think of is that we don't need to spend millions of dollars
              conducting statewide voting for each proposition that appears.
              \_ Because the masses are too stupid to know what's best for the
                 state.  The elected representatives are supposed to be
                 smarter and spend all their time figuring out this stuff
                 for us.
                 \_ If they're too stupid to know what's best for the state
                    they are too stupid to elect a smart representative.
                    \_ Or rather, they'll be so stupid that they'll be fooled
                       by smart representatives who don't do the public good.
        \_ The crime in this article is painting redistricting as a purely
           partisan issue.  BS.  Gerrymandering has to be fixed for the
           health of the democracy.  What party that "helps" in a given
           state _should_ be irrelevent. I'm not sure if judges are the
           best canidates, but it's certainly a step up from having the
           legislators elect themselves. -jrleek
           \_ I don't think they really portreyed it that way. I thought
              they were more saying that politicans from both parties are
              pretty much against it for obvious reasons, and that the
              majority party is more against it, again for obvious reasons.
              It seems to me that since the nytimes is pretty openly
              democratic, that when they say that the democrats are the main
              obstructionists, it's not really that partisan.
              obstructionists, it's not really that partisan.  This seems to
              me like an issue where everyone of any political affiliation
              should be on the same side except for the weasel politicians
              of both parties who get a free ride by bullshit gerrymandering.
              How many times in your life have you voted for a member of a
              state assembly or for U.S. representative where the incumbent's
              job was even remotely threatened?  I never have, and I've lived
              in quite a few places.  That's not democracy.
           \_ Agreed. It's all well and good for one side to say, hey, the
              other side does it too, but it's reprehensible to let that logic
              prevent meaningful reform.