Tom Steyer proposes national referendum, term limits on Congress

[brooklynite]

NBC News

WASHINGTON — Liberal billionaire and newly declared Democratic presidential candidate Tom Steyer on Thursday said that as president he would let voters make laws directly through regular national referenda.

It's part of Steyer's new structural reform plan, which also proposes fairly novel ideas like 12-year term limits on members of Congress, a national vote-by-mail system, public campaign financing, giving the Federal Elections Commission more teeth and different composition, and imposing independent redistricting commissions to tackle gerrymandering.

It also includes more standard Democratic fare like overturning the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision and the ethics and elections reform package House Democrats put forward this year in their bill dubbed H.R. 1.

A national referendum, where voters can change laws at the ballot box, would tip the U.S. more towards direct democracy and away from the representative government envisioned by the Founders.

[andym]

1. Lots of interesting ideas

His presence in the primary is already creating dividends. Let's see what people and the other candidates think.

[shanny]

2. anybody going to check in with the pie-in-the-sky / don't promise unicorns

response? Because it would as appropriate here as anywhere.

Congressional term limits? Constitutional amendment
National referenda for new laws? Constitutional amendment
overturn Citizens United? New SCOTUS

[StevieM]

6. That last one is the key.

We need a new SCOTUS.

We need a candidate who will not tolerate a Supreme Court that is leading the assault on democracy.

[customerserviceguy]

8. I'll chime in on that one

Steyer is just another rich guy who is full of himself.

[shanny]

15. +1

[dsc]

3. I bet blacks are glad we didn't have national referenda in 1953 or 1964

I sure as heck am glad we didn't in 2015. For the lily white, straight, rich Tom Steyer I am sure the idea of popular vote on all things sounds like a great plan. His right to education won't be on the block, his right to public accomodation won't be on the block, his marriage won't be on the block.

[msongs]

4. enabling repub voter suppression schemes. nt

[bluewater]

5. "he would let voters make laws directly through regular national referenda"

What could possibly go wrong? I mean,does he really mean MAKE LAWS, as in draft them?

[loyalsister]

13. It happens in Missouri

Last year voters essentially vetoed a general assembly passed right to work bill, passed a new law to raise the minimum wage. As well as one loosening some gambling restrictions for oversight of bingo.
We also had a choice to codify medical marijuana legalization in law or through constitutional amendment. We chose the latter so that the general assembly cannot undo it.

There is now a referendum gathering signatures to override the recent abortion ban.

There are pros and cons to that process it works to counter some paid lobbyists efforts, but those same lobbyists have exploited it as well.

I'm not sure if it is a good idea for that process to be available at the federal level. I know term limits are a bad idea, which benefit republicans because after MO began electing a lot of newbies each election cycle, the lobbyists and staffers write the legislation because the novices don't know what they're doing. It was like 2010 when the Koch financed, no nothing, tea partiers won their seats.
In other damage, since they went into effect, every open seat becomes more vulnerable to republicans because it costs so much to win without the benefit of incumbency.

[SouthernProgressive]

7. National referendum is one of the most ignorant ideas out there.

It would be horrific. And we have enough rookies floundering in congress.

[customerserviceguy]

9. If it were by simple majority, I agree

but if there were some sort of supermajority, like two-thirds, or 70%, it might be a worthwhile thing to have when special interests have bought all of Congress. However, it will never get through the amendment process, so it's just a thought experiment, anyway.

[SouthernProgressive]

11. Requiring a super majority would just create an excuse for stagnation.

I don't see one positive to it. Then again, I see very few positives to a true straight democracy.

[customerserviceguy]

17. We already have plenty

of excuses for stagnation. In any case, it's not going to happen. I doubt I will ever see another Constitutional amendment added in my lifetime. They take sizable supermajorities to pass, and I just don't see ever getting some 65-75 percent of the people for anything, anyway.

[BootinUp]

10. Term limits are bullshit. Fix the real problems. Eom

[loyalsister]

14. We have term limits

Every election cycle we have an opportunity to fire them. Term limits that impose limits on our choices for direct representation are anti-democratic.

[LanternWaste]

12. An absurd proposal rationalized by the absurd.

For reference: John Stuart Mill, 1859 text, 'On Liberty'; and Tocqueville's 1840 treatise, 'The Old Regime and the Revolution'

The best consequence? Promotion of mediocrity in culture, education and politics.

Worst consequence? Soft despotism eventually resulting in the benevolent despotism akin to the 18th and 19th century European great powers in all but format only.


(again, see Mill and Tocqueville for further reading...)

[Eric J in MN]

16. The presidency is too powerful and term limits for Congress

...would make that worse. No experienced legislators to balance the president if term limits pass.

[Peacetrain]

19. This!!

[Merlot]

18. He lost me at term limits. n/t

[Recursion]

20. Two incredibly stupid ideas

Legislative term limits just make lobbyists more powerful.

Referenda are disasters waiting to happen. The public just honestly isn't going to understand most issues of any complexity.