The smell of political silliness is in the air here in Connecticut. An article in the Courant mentions:
- Connecticut is required to have a ballot question every 20 years on whether to call a convention to amend the state’s constitution;
- This November will see an appearance of the bi-decadal question on the ballot;
- Groups supporting an anti-same-gender amendment to the state constitution and the introduction of the ballot initiative are ramping up a campaign to encourage voters to vote “yes” to the question.
While I’m all for periodically revisiting the fundamentals from which our legal and regulatory system works, I tend to distrust politicians’ and activists’ attempts to improve something that isn’t necessarily broken. That distrust is doubled when folks seeking to meddle with the status-quo have ulterior motives.
For example, longer-time readers of this blog should be aware of my thoughts on same-gender marriage – I feel that the notion of a bureaucrat or politician dictating whom God or Mother Nature may marry to be silly at best, arrogant at worst. I wouldn’t mind seeing a roadblock or two set up to interfere with those who would aggravate that silliness/arrogance.
On the subject of ballot initiatives – while I can see the attraction to the idea, I can also see the potential for great mischief to be caused through attempting to game the tyranny of the majority. Besides, given the small size of Connecticut, both in terms of population and geography, state legislators seem particularly responsive to the will of the people. For a recent example, consider the recent hoopla over requiring gas company franchises to permit franchisees to grant cash discounts.
We apparently don’t need ballot initiatives in this state to see silliness occur.
Given the level of responsiveness we already have in state government, why the heck should we want to give up the sanity that is supposed to be imposed by filtering legislative changes through theoretically wise elected representatives?
However, I suspect that I’m in the minority on this matter. So, if we are going to endure the ordeal of ballot initiatives in this state, could I at least get the right to mace aggressive petitioners written into the state constitution, or the state’s do-not-call law amended to prohibit robocalls from political campaigns and campaigns for/against the initiatives of the day?
