Share

Ending Minority Rule in California: One Sentence Can Do It

by: George Lakoff, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

photo
(Image: Troy Page / t r u t h o u t; adapted from yuan2003 / Flickr)

    California is in deep trouble because it has a dysfunctional system of government. Much of the problem can be change by one sentence.

    I have sent to the attorney general a ballot proposition for the 2010 ballot called The California Democracy Act, the content of which is the following: All legislative action on revenue and budget must be determined by a majority vote.

    It would change two words in the Constitution, turning "two-thirds" to "majority" in two places. It is simple, understandable and it is about democracy.

    I will be speaking on this in Los Angeles Thursday night. (See note below.)

    As I see it, democracy is the main issue in the governance of our state. The two-thirds rules have an anti-democratic effect. Our legislature is currently under minority rule. One-third plus one - only 34 percent -of either the Assembly or Senate can block the will of the majority until their demands are met. This is undemocratic.

    Minority rule is why we have gridlock in the legislature. Minority rule has brought our state to near bankruptcy, causing crises throughout the state.

    A majority of California voters have elected a majority of the state legislators, and that majority is responsible and, so far as I can tell, overwhelmingly dedicated to sane fiscal management and to serving the needs of our citizens. But they are handcuffed by minority rule.

    Democracy can work in California. What the majority of voters want, a majority in the legislature will enact. And it only takes a majority of voters to enact that one-sentence amendment.

    Changing the vote requirement to a majority for budget and revenue will ensure that California's budget can meet the state's needs and be passed on time. One sentence can end economic uncertainty and provide for an improved credit rating, for payment of our bills with money instead of IOUs, and will bring stability to our schools, nursing homes and universities. One sentence can make California a well-run state again.

    How does minority rule happen? By trickery. Don't be fooled. The way a minority of one-third plus one comes to run the show is by imposing a 2/3 rule. It may sound more democratic, but it is less democratic. It allows a minority to rule by gridlock, by thwarting the will of the majority in the legislature, and hence, a majority of the voters in the state.

    No other state is run by such a minority. In no other state can a ruthless minority cause the chaos, disruption, pain and near-bankruptcy that our state has suffered. A majority of the voters can end the tyranny of the minority.

    Democracy means majority rule. One sentence will do the job.

    Of course, there will be a blowback. Conservatives will say, as they always do, that this is just a ruse to raise taxes.

    But this is about democracy, not about how or whether revenues are raised. What the majority of citizens want, a majority of elected representatives will enact. The question is simple: Do you want democracy?

    Here's what government is about in a democracy. Government has two sacred moral missions: to protect and empower its citizens.

    Protection starts with police and public safety and extends to protection for consumers, for our food, for workers, for the elderly, for those sick and helpless, for the environment and for investors.

    Empowerment is what allows us to earn a living and live decent lives: public roads and buildings; a working power grid; water; a basic educational system; a system of public health and nursing homes; a system of higher education with advanced research in medicine, computing, and agriculture; banks and insurance companies you can trust and a court system that works.

    No one earns a living in California without protection and empowerment by the government. No one makes it without all of these things. Without them, the California Dream becomes a nightmare. Without revenue and a sensible budget, there can be no protection and no empowerment, and the world's seventh largest and richest economy starts to look like a third-world country.

    Minority rule is closing California. State parks: closed. Schools: closed. Fire departments: closed. Nursing homes: closed. Medical clinics: closed. Libraries: closed.

    We do not have to stand for it.

    The majority of voters choose the majority of legislators. That's simple democracy. When the majority of legislators rule, the majority of voters rule.

    Can this work? It can, with strong support. What is needed is a serious campaign making the case for democracy, and allowing the voters to see that minority rule is the root of the problem.

    Since the minority is a strongly conservative Republican minority, progressive Democrats running for the legislature in 2010 can run on a prodemocracy platform, placing the blame for gridlock where it belongs, on their opponents.

    The main question is whether we can run such a campaign successfully. That is simply a matter of organization, commitment, support, and funding. None of those is trivial. But we know how to do them.

    Note: Professor Lakoff will be speaking Thursday night in Los Angeles, California, to a coalition meeting of a wide variety of organizations dedicated to ending the 2/3 rules.
    Where: SEIU 721
    500 S. Virgil Los Angeles, CA 90020
    Auditorium (Located on the first floor)
    R.S.V.P.: susieanneshannon@yahoo.com
    or call (323) 939-5475

  

»


George Lakoff is the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley. He is the author of "The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 21st Century Politics With an 18th Century Brain." His latest book, "The Political Mind," appeared in paperback on June 2.

Comments

This is a moderated forum. Β It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

I agree with the author 100%.

I agree with the author 100%.

Abolish California's

Abolish California's constitutional two-thirds rule pertaining to taxation and you solve most of the state's budget problems, according to George Lakoff. The alternative is to impoverish the government. And he's right. But that was the point all along of Proposition 13, which instituted the 2/3rds rule as well as drastically cutting property taxes. California's homeowners defend Prop. 13 to their deaths. Their tax savings, they calculate, are worth destruction of the state apparatus. So, Californians: circle your wagons, if you can negotiate the potholes. Or get real.

I wish that Ohio had a 2/3

I wish that Ohio had a 2/3 rule. Mr. Lakoff wants the democratic majority to be able to loot the remaining productive citizens of California. This is precisely why the Founding Fathers hated and feared democracy and established a constitutional republic, at least as long as the American people could keep it.

Of course, outsized public

Of course, outsized public expenditures and a dwindling tax base have nothing to do with CA's problems. "[N]ot about how or whether revenues are raised"? Kind of sums up liberalism in a nutshell.

As I remember it was so bad

As I remember it was so bad in the state congress when a majority of one could derail constructive legislation and had begun our great states decline through overspending and hyper taxation that we the "MAJORITY" of voters took control of them with the change to our constitution to the two thirds vote system on financial issues. To me that simply means there are more people in favor of controlling our legislators and more people in favor of insuring there is never a mob rule in our congress. If the Tax/borrow and spend lawmakers want to have their way they need the people to vote more of them into office, not change the constitution to fill their whim.

Thanks, George, for taking

Thanks, George, for taking the initiative on this very important process of engaging the people of California directly to reform their broken political system.

I'd like to suggest that it is also important to understand how conservatives have used the Tax Relief Frame to cripple governing capacity of democratic institutions. You might enjoy reading this article:

Ending the Hidden Agenda Behind Tax Cuts

In solidarity,

Joe Brewer

Director, Cognitive Policy Works

There is an existing

There is an existing proposal to lower the threshold from 66.67% to 60%. The push to lower the threshold from 66.67% to 51% is not new, has been defeated in the past, and will no doubt be defeated again regardless of how idealists prattle about 'democracy'. If the good professor was truly interested in change he'd keep his mouth shut and throw himself behind the more moderate proposal, instead he is more likely to drag down both to the detriment of all.

Compare California's 2/3rds

Compare California's 2/3rds rule to Connecticut's Majority rule. Connecticut Did not pass a budget until September, months late, even though they only needed a majority and an overwhelming majority is democratic. Those two words may change the tally for passage but they won't bring passage. Indeed, isn't a budget agreeable to 2/3rds better than one agreeable to 1/2? If they can't hit that compromise maybe it's the legislators that are the problem and not the 2/3rds rule.

Another answer is to split

Another answer is to split the state into two, with the coastal areas from San Francisco south as one state, and the rest a second state. Still another answer might be to charge for Education, and cut off all services to illegals, including heathcare and education.. From what I have read that might save Billions.

" But this is about

" But this is about democracy, not about how or whether revenues are raised." Your entire article is about increasing tax revenue by allowing the legislature to tax the heck out of that 1/3 that you frame as being the bad guy here. No one is fooled by your democracy screen. Maybe that 1/3 should pay a bit more, and maybe public expenditures needs to be cut, but lets have honest conversation about that instead of simply using the buzz words democracy and freedom to back up whatever position we support.

From reading this article, I

From reading this article, I can assume that the author is in complete support of the ban on gay marriage in California pursuant to Proposition 8, since it was supported by a bare majority of Californians, correct? The fact of the matter is that California has the 9th highest per-capita state tax rate in the country. To blame the 2/3rds rule for California's budget problems is patently ridiculous and completely ignores the facts.

David Macko: Are you

David Macko: Are you implying that the USA is not a democracy? If you do so, it is because you had never lived in a tyranny.

Let's be absolutely clear,

Let's be absolutely clear, the current financial wreck is the result of three decades of conservative politics and "free market" economics that have bankrupted the middle class and promoted financial inequality to third world proportions. Where ever you live on the face of the earth you will be taxed, the important thing to ask is "What do we get for our taxes?" In other industrialized countries the citizens get free medical care, free education including college and post graduate studies, good roads and infrastructure. If tax rates for the top few percentiles were returned to pre-Reagan levels (along with sensible regulation of financial markets) CA would not be in dire straits.

The current CA budget

The current CA budget process is a nightmare. The author is correct and majority rule would eliminate the roadblock we currently experience every budget cycle.

Mike in NYC wrote: Of

Mike in NYC wrote: Of course,.... a dwindling tax base have nothing to do with CA's problems. If you read the article, you will understand WHY there is a dwindling tax base. The wealthy are not shouldering their fair share of the taxes. David M wrote: Mr. Lakoff wants the democratic majority to be able to loot the remaining productive citizens of California. No, he wants them to pay taxes according to their booty.

Why is it that there is only

Why is it that there is only a TWO party system in ALL levels of government? Aren't we suppose to have multiple parties for this kind of purpose? Its a good thing that I am an independent of no political affiliation. Starting this crass policy by ending minority rule will not help any cause. Besides this nation is turning into tribes/clans that segments certain populations against each other. The America that I use to know 26 years ago is already gone. All it is replaced is a bunch of political labels that continues to enable the slow implosion of this nation. I do not care for the word democrat or republican is about, in fact we need to have a reality based solutions and not the silliness from this report indicates. If not then I bid farewell to all citizens and gladly renounce my American citizenship for replacing with nothing.

Mr. Macko, Would you prefer

Mr. Macko, Would you prefer that the democratic minority gets to loot the public goods for a small elite? That's what's happened here in California.

California is in trouble

California is in trouble because of its dysfunctional citizenry. They want the government to provide everything, but don't want to pay taxes for it. Instead of changing "two thirds" to "majority" they should pass a state constitutional amendment that requires every bill that requires funding to have a specific source of available funding tied to the bill and if the funding dries up, so does the item tied to that funding. This is called living within y0ur means - something the federal government should also do.

And the real democracy is

And the real democracy is the one the innovators and entrepreneurs are already starting to practice with their feet. Nevada must look pretty attractive to them. The Founders gave us a republic, not a democracy - and for good reasons.

Yes, a simple majority will

Yes, a simple majority will keep the ultra anti-tax minority from stopping even a 1/4 cent sales tax increase. It will allow the majority to collect taxes from the 50% of profitable California corporations that don't even pay taxes. It will give us the revenues to invest in the people of our state by improving education and public services in a government for the people and by the people, not for the rich and by the rich.

I read the article a second

I read the article a second time, Lynne, and a third and a fourth, and nowhere does it back up your assertion that "the wealthy are not shouldering their fair share of the taxes." It doesn’t even try. All I saw was standard leftist prattle from beginning to end, similar to your characterization of productive citizens' earnings as "booty." The unavoidable truth is that the portion of CA’s population – and the U.S.’s for that matter – with a positive return on investment is shrinking.

when is a minority a

when is a minority a majority????? When they out-number the "good ole' Boys....!

Prop 13 created two classes

Prop 13 created two classes of homeowners in California, those grandfathered in to a fixed rate of increase of property taxes which in effect held them down below the rate of inflation, and those who had to foot the entire bill. The result has been a great reluctance to sell one's home with attendant oddities such as divorced couples still sharing the same house as well as other restraints on alienation. Somehow the Supreme Court found no equal protection or substantive due process problem with this. Two classes Mike in NYC; there's one dwindling tax base for you. As to referenda, they would seem to violate the federal Constitution's guarantee of a republican form of government for every state since under such a government the people elect their representatives and that's pretty much it until the next election; they are expected to put some thought into the wisdom of their elected leaders, and republicanism was meant to remove the emotionalism of the masses from governing. One previous poster thought 2/3 was a great idea over just 50% + 1. OK then, how about 75%? How about unanimous consent? That's sure to lead to consensus, isn't it? Or is it guaranteed to lead to even worse gridlock? I recall an example from medieval Poland; the nobles were required to have unanimous consent among themselves to do anything; result: they couldn't defend themselves from Russia because somebody held out for a better deal. California is dysfunctional but it's its own doing.

Keep the 2/3 vote - it keeps

Keep the 2/3 vote - it keeps one party from taking control of our tax dollars and adding more taxes. California keeps losing businesses and jobs because of the high taxes here.

Democracy is two foxes and a

Democracy is two foxes and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. The government needs checks on what it can take from people, or the result will be California.

California's homeowners

California's homeowners defend prop. 13 to the death..and yep, they're dying. As millions of property owners become renters from the housing collapse, employment collapse and falling wages, they're rapidly becoming a much smaller political force. California became rich on it's fantastic university system and terrific services, without which Silicon Valley (for instance) would not have come into existence. There's a reason the low tax, libertarian states rarely acquire such assets. Now the rich, who took every advantage offered them by the state, refuse to pay anything back. And their failure to do so is not only dooming the state apparatus, it's dooming the cult of homeownership.

I was born and raised in

I was born and raised in this state. I can remember when California was number one in everything, from education to infrastructure and public services. Since Prop 13 in 1978, CA has shrunk to the lowest level in all of these. We are the 7th largest economy on the planet and the richest state in the union. For 30 years, we have had an expanding population. In that time we have lost the progressive income tax, are the only state in the union without an oil extraction tax, and we have a property tax that rewards commercial real estate owners and punishes owner-occupied property owners. The disconnect between the necessary services needed to live and prosper and the quality of one's life seems to elude these angry people who cannot see we all need these services: roads, bridges, schools, disaster relief, clean air, clean water and so on. They demand and use these services, but do not wish to pay for them. These naysayers deride the basic tenet of democracy which is built on majority rule. A tyranny of the minority suits them fine because they want to benefit from the public commons but not pay for it. This kind of thinking shows a disconnect from reality and the role of government. Everything we do every day is the result of our government. If majority rule displeases this 1/3 of our population in CA, then they must be against a democracy. Can you point to any other state in the United States that is doing well under the rule of a 1/3 minority?

Prof. Lakoff did not mention

Prof. Lakoff did not mention that some regard a single vote majority as "the tyranny of the majority." In such a system those whose votes count for nothing, some 49% perhaps, then feel justified in not accepting the decision and thus oppose it in some form, creating conflict. The two-thirds plus one system is closer to a consensus and, theoretically, may draw more support for the final decision. Consensus could be a preferred system of decision making in some circumstances as it may reach a decision acceptable for all.

As far as I can tell, the

As far as I can tell, the folks who live in these 2/3 supermajority states, much like the teabaggers, are lazy. In a society with democratic institutions, you are the government and majority should rule. If you don't like that, work to change it and keep working at it. 2/3 majorities are the lazy, anti-democratic way out that let people just sit around and say, "I hate my government..." instead of doing something about it.

The US senate is being run

The US senate is being run at a 2/3 vote system was well. It has looked very frustrating to me. It does permit tyranny by a minority. Conscensus does not have to mean 2/3.

As a libertarian, I oppose

As a libertarian, I oppose majorities looting minorities, as always occurs in democracies, and minorities looting majorities, which form of government is called an oligarchy. From a pragmatic view, oligarchies are probably less dangerous since they can be overthrown more easily than majorities who are trying to oppress me. In practice, most democracies degenerate into oligarchies. Our Founding Fathers attempted to establish a republic, a government whose purpose is to protect the lives, liberty and justly acquired property of the people. Most of the problems which we face as a nation began when we moved away from that concept, especially after 1913. For a better understanding of how government should function in a free society I strongly recommend The Law, by the great French statesman, philosopher and economist, Frederic Bastiat, available on the web at http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html. Be sure to read and understand the concept of just law versus legalized plunder.

no minority? that is not the

no minority? that is not the definition of democracy but akin to what China has in their politburo where all of them vote for Aye and there is only 1 dissident just for the sake of creating 'democracy'. Funny that most people in here who have not been in China does not even know that is how the politic government operates. I know cause I have seen it many times in either newspapers or on CCTV( even though it is heavily slated with limited journalistic freedom). As an Chinese American I detest anyone who wants to end minority rule just because a small group is blockading propositions that are so called "in dire need of" instead of "cut spending and create saving's incentives". I no longer associate myself as an American if this passes.

Again, there are those who's

Again, there are those who's comments would blame prop. 13 for all of Calif's woes. If prop. 13 were repealed, I and millions of other would have to sell their homes just to pay the taxes on it.

I was born here: I was also

I was born here: I was also born here and you are absolutely correct.

Readers, No one is

Readers, No one is seriously proposing a repeal of Prop. 13, because forcing people out of their homes won't solve our problems. However, the tax structure needs to be altered, because it's embarrassing for the nation's richest state to crumble into the abyss. Tax monies provide us with all the things we need: roads, lights, parks, schools, etc. Sure, their may be some social programs that could be altered or done away with, and we may need to re-prioritize based on available revenues. But the Professor is totally correct about the minority ruling in California. Would the nay-sayers feel soothed with a compromise of 55%? Anyhow, lets get real and fix the state's problems.

Shouldn't this same idea be

Shouldn't this same idea be applied around the entire country? I resent that the people have elected a democrat president and we have to spend the entire period as if the republican party was still in office. What happens to the will of the people?

You are putting the cart

You are putting the cart before the horse. FIRST, you must get liberals to reliably vote. There is no trickery to how the system works. It is very simple: Conservatives vote in every election and liberals vote every four years.

I'm for Decisive Change.

I'm for Decisive Change. We don't need a Big Government nor Privatization. We need an Effective Government that advances a Better Future with Broad Prosperity for all. It's starts with our education system because the more people we educate, the more Prosperity we have for all.