Reviewing Democracy

AIR DATE: Wednesday, August 18th 2010
POSTED BY: JULIE SABATIER

A nonprofit group has brought together a randomly selected group of citizens to act as a kind of jury to assess two of the initiatives on this year's ballot. The nonprofit Healthy Democracy Oregon designed each panel of 24 people per ballot measure to represent the demographics of the Oregon electorate. There are no state dollars involved, but the 2009 legislature did pass a bill officially approving this political experiment.

The Citizens' Initiative Review will vote on the merits of each measure and share their views with the public in the official voter's pamphlet. A pilot panel met in 2008 to review Measure 58, but this is the first time the group's findings will appear in the voter's guide alongside the official ballot language, as well as the arguments for and against each measure. Healthy Democracy Oregon will have to pay for the space, just like other groups that use the voter's guide to disseminate their arguments for and against ballot measures.

A panel met last week to hear testimony on Measure 73 and of the two dozen panelists, 21 opposed the mandatory minimum sentencing measure. Proponents of Measure 73 raised concerns about the process, which they say was not entirely fair or accurate. This week, a new panel will spend 40 hours assessing Measure 74, which would allow medical marijuana dispensaries in Oregon.

How do you decide how you'll vote on a ballot measure? Is input from a panel of citizens helpful to you? Did you consider throwing your hat in the ring to be part of the Citizens' Initiative Review? Would you consider doing so for future elections?

GUESTS:

Tagged as: 2010 election · initiative · politics

Photo credit: Julia Manzerova / Creative Commons

I decide how I'll vote on measures by talking to family, friends, and doing research. I don't know if input from the panel will be helpful, but I hope it will. Ballot measures are complex and there's usually too much spin and a paucity of facts provided by ballot measure supporters.

I will be curious to read CIR opinions and weigh them with other information sources. This thought from the HDO web page (see link above) concerns me as well.

“With as much information as we’ve been getting (on Measure 73), it makes me feel that I’m not getting enough information on everything else that comes up on the ballot,” said Gresham, 66.

Ballot measures can be complex enough that voters don't understand all the proposed details and nuances.

Reading the FAQ on HDO's website caused me concern. I mean this as constructive criticism. There are several typographical errors in the first few paragraphs that create incomplete/unclear sentences. I had to infer the author's intent. This is not good for an organization that wants to provide clarity for voters. HDO should edit their FAQ page carefully. For example:

"Each person in the pool is assigned a number (to protect their privacy, and prevent ) and then in a public meeting, a panel of 24 voters is assembled to match the demographics of state electorate."

And prevent what?

I like the idea of the CIR process: more eyeballs looking at and analyzing initiatives might help voters make more informed decisions. I hope that citizens participating on the review panels will receive instruction and encouragment to remain impartial as they consider the facts concerning ballot measures.

trurl9 —

I think the participants will try to remain impartial and honor the process, but they are chosen to represent average Oregonians with all their demographic/ethnic/political biases.  It's a representation of an election, not really a court of law.  In a court of law, the two sets of lawyers try to throw out all the jurors who know anything about the case or have a leaning one way or the other.  That's not what elections are like. 

Cay —

I read the measure, the actual text.
Based on that document I make a decision.


Desolation —

In a True Jeffersonian Democracy, EVERY voting member knows his vote is a PRIVILEGE AND a RESPONSIBILITY.  We are obligated to be educated and also informed about every issue or candidate we vote on.

The VOTER PAMPHLET is comprehensive with the actual legislation wording, financial implications and a healthy, vigorous pro and con debate condensed usually in  40 pages per proposition.

Democracy is sidetracked when we use television commercial sloganneering, radio pitchmen, PAC 'Experts' and even Citizen Review Committees.  IT is using cheat notes to try to arrive at a complex decision process.  In a TRUE DEMOCRACY, CITIZENS THINK FOR THEMSELVES--and Collectively We all WIN.

I would suggest, people who do not know the issues and do not care to learn about them, WITHHOLD voting on those particular issues rather than vote in IGNORANCE.  Instead of spending 5 hours watching TV every night, our society would be better served if citizens spent  a single hour focused on voter issues and propositions.  Maybe a Universal Sufferage is not a Universal Good.

jacob —

I decide my vote in the same way that Congress does; lobbyists buy me meals and contribute funding to my library.

tuesday eddie —

This an interesting idea.

But I suspect that selecting people who are willing and able to take a week off, automatically eliminates most of the lower classes who have to work for a living.

Tom D Ford —

I wish I could vote with out seeing party colors or knowing the names and faces behind the ideas that will effect my community. I feel that as voters we get so wrapped up in the idea that because I decided to register with this party or that party, I have to vote in this direction. Why not become educated on a point by looking at the facts, and the results plainly and not through political-party colored glasses?

rebeekers —

Thanks for addressing that, Dave. I think that they covered it pretty well, with a stipend, hotel, childcare, etc.

I wonder how employers have responded to such requests, if they like the idea and support it or don't like letting the employee be gone for a week.

Tom D Ford —

I would like to see the panel arguments filmed (videoed) and made available to the public in some way. Online or over long hours on public TV.

I like to hear to from the horses mouth so to speak, before some talking head pundit interprets it for me.

Tom D Ford —

Personally I'd like to see fewer people trying to give me their opinion on how I should vote... strip all the adverts associated with each measure or candidate out, let me read the proposal, ponder it and decide.

rethomas —

I'd like to see an adult political educational series of programs, somewhat like an ongoing adult version of Sesame Street or the NASA "Why Files" that would teach flat out what politics is about, how it is done, how to read between the lines, about Machiavelli and his theories, about propaganda, logic and rationality, what Critical Thinking Skills are, the Three Ways of Lying and how to recognize them, the history of politics and who benefitted and how and why, how politics affects the economy and how wealth is redistributed in the various systems, about how Rulers like Pharoahs, Kings, Caesars, Tsars, etc, took over Religions and modified and developed and used Religions for politics and control and abuse of The People, how laws are made and by whom and who benefits and who loses, on and on. And the history of Corporations, which are artificial human beings, and everything about them.

And run those programs over and over, just like the "Why Files" so that anyone can go back and catch any program they missed or did not understand the first time through, and newbies can jump right in anywhere and get themselves wised up.

I learned about politics in senior year of High School and then in College and I realize that people who don't go to college miss that political education. And many people don't even learn about politics in college. Of course I'm on a lifelong learning path and I've read and talked to people far beyond the college stuff, too, and I don't expect that most people will go after it like that.

Tom D Ford —

I get my information from the City Club of Portland ballot measure reports.  Since 1938, City Club has convened volunteer, citizen-based reviews of Oregon ballot initiatives giving voters fact based analyses and recommendations on how to vote.   

In fact, three groups are currently meeting weekly to study and make recommendations on Measures 26-108, 73 and 74.   The reports will be released and voted on by City Club members in October.   You can learn more about the studies in progress and find old reports on the City Club website at http://pdxcityclub.org/content/studies-progress. 

Charity Fain, Executive Director, City Club of Portland

Charity —
The problem with just reading the text of bm73 is that it is misleading. It suggests a mandatory 90 day jail sentence for the a third DUII. However, under current Oregon sentencing guidelines, if a third DUII is a felony the person would get 13 to 14 months in prison as a mandatory. The fact is the text is designed to persuade voters and not tell the truth about it's consequences. I think healthy democracy did a great service to inform panelists, and hopefully Oregon voters, of the real consequences of this costly measure. If only we all had five days of intense education on measures before we took a plunge and voted. We would have a much better process. I will be taking the Citizen Initiative Review panel's suggestions very seriously in the future.
RR —

The League of Women Voters is another good resource for information on the ballot measures.  They give background as well as concise explanations that are more understandable than the text of the measures.  You get a good, reasonable summary of the main pro and con arguments and then can make up your own mind.  Relying on the arguments in the pamphlet that comes in the mail isn't a good way to make a decision; there's no fact checking so you can't trust what they say.

htdrake —

Comments are now closed.



Become a sponsor