It’s a recurring theme almost every election year here in California: some voters, many of them progressive, proclaim a “no on everything” stance on the ballot propositions. Intended as a protest at the flawed initiative process, this approach is little more than unilateral disarmament in the face of a concerted right-wing, corporate-funded effort to destroy California’s prosperity and democracy. Instead of making a futile gesture that won’t help fix California’s woes, progressives need to make intelligent choices on the November ballot – some of which involve a Yes vote.<\/p>\n
I’ve been having this discussion on Facebook with several friends this past week, but one of the most prominent exponents of the “no on everything” approach is Markos Moulitsas. He’s mentioned this many times on Daily Kos, with one of the clearest articulations coming in January 2008<\/a>:<\/p>\n My default position is to vote “no” on all of them (except for the ballot initiative to eliminate the ballot initiative, I’d vote “yes” for that one). Is there a really good reason I should consider casting a “yes” vote for any of them? For those of you following Golden State politics closely, please chime in.<\/p>\n Update: Thanks for the advice guys. I’m sticking with “no” on everything. I hate ballot box budgeting and changes to the state constitution make me leery. So while I was as conflicted as the community on 92, since it’s a worthy cause, any conflict is resolved toward the negative.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is one form of an argument that usually goes something like this: “it’s the legislature’s job to make laws, not the voters’. I’m going to vote no on everything because I don’t want the system to get screwed up even worse.”<\/p>\n There’s no doubt that the ballot initiative process in California is flawed and needs reform. But to vote “no” on all initiatives, regardless of their content, is to declare unilateral disarmament in the middle of a political war. A no vote on all initiatives, even progressive initiatives, hands victory to the right-wing and the corporations when it comes to progressive initiatives that are usually difficult to pass.<\/p>\n The fact is that the initiative process, like the United States Senate, is massively flawed but is also part of our politics. We cannot simply refuse to fight because we don’t like the process. Just as no sensible progressive would suggest we boycott US Senate elections this fall in a protest against the failure of the Senate to address this country’s problems, no sensible California progressive should suggest we surrender the ballot initiative fight in a protest against the flaws of that process.<\/p>\n Like a vote for Ralph Nader, or a decision to not vote at all, a “default no” on ballot propositions is a particularly pointless act of political protest. It does not do anything to help improve the state legislature, because as Joe Mathews and Mark Paul have very ably explained in their new book California Crackup<\/em>, the legislature is broken not just because of the initiative process but because of things like the 2\/3rds rule and other systematic problems that cannot be addressed solely by initiative reform.<\/p>\n Further, the “default no” approach is flawed because it so often hands victory to corporations when progressives refuse to support progressive policies that can only be enacted at the ballot box. In 2006 and again in June 2010 some form of public financing went onto the ballot, and in June it suffered a particularly close defeat. Any progressive who voted No on Prop 15 because they take a “default no” on the initiatives helped hand a major victory to corporations while undermining one of the most important progressive goals we have today: public financing of elections.<\/p>\n The November 2010 ballot provides a textbook – and very important – example of how a “no on everything” vote undermines not only progressives, but actually blocks an effort to fix the legislature so “they can do their jobs” and hopefully lead to fewer flawed ballot measures.<\/p>\n Proposition 25<\/a> would restore majority rule to the budget process. It would end the 2\/3rds requirement to pass a budget, which has led to crippling gridlock in Sacramento as budgets are routinely delayed not by weeks but by months as right-wingers use their veto power conferred on them by the 2\/3rds rule to undermine progressive proposals and further worsen an already broken budget and government.<\/p>\n Someone taking a “default no” approach to the November 2010 initiatives would therefore be prolonging the gridlock in the legislature and would be joining such progressive leaders as Chevron, the California Chamber of Commerce, Meg Whitman, the Howard Jarvis Association, and Tom McClintock in defeating a proposal that would restore some progressive power and help enable further reforms to fix the legislature. In this case in particular, a “default no” from any progressive becomes worse than futile – it becomes a de facto<\/em> vote for right-wing policy.<\/p>\n We can see other examples of this on the November 2010 ballot. Prop 24<\/a> would hike taxes on large corporations by closing a tax loophole created in the 2008 and 2009 budget deals. Are progressives seriously going to oppose that? Prop 21<\/a> would guarantee the long-term future of state parks as well as freeing up hundreds of millions of dollars each year to the general fund. Why would progressives oppose this, and put state parks at jeopardy of being sold off to private developers?<\/p>\n Good progressive political activism is that which engages in the fights that are before us, while also making long-term plans to improve the battlefield itself. We absolutely must reform the initiative process, as part of a broader fix to California’s broken government. But we won’t get there with the unilateral disarmament of a “no on everything” approach to ballot propositions. Progressives need to get informed and make the right decisions.<\/p>\n Thankfully, there are resources out there to help you. The Courage Campaign – where I work as Public Policy Director – has produced a Progressive Voter Guide<\/a> that you can get by clicking that link or by texting VOTECA<\/b> to 30644<\/b>. It includes recommendations on the ballot propositions from Courage Campaign, CREDO Action, and a range of other major statewide organizations.<\/p>\n There’s no excuse for handing a victory to the right-wing and the corporations by voting no on important progressive propositions like Prop 21, Prop 24, and especially Prop 25. Let’s make sure that progressives make the right choice this election, instead of giving up the fight and letting the enemy win by default.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" It’s a recurring theme almost every election year here in California: some voters, many of them progressive, proclaim a “no on everything” stance on the ballot propositions. Intended as a protest at the flawed initiative process, this approach is little more than unilateral disarmament in the face of a concerted right-wing, corporate-funded effort to destroy California’s prosperity and democracy. Instead of making a futile gesture that won’t help fix California’s woes, progressives need to make intelligent choices on the November ballot – some of which involve a Yes vote.<\/p>\n I’ve been having this discussion on Facebook with several friends this past week, but one of the most prominent exponents of the “no on everything” approach is Markos Moulitsas. He’s mentioned this many times on Daily Kos, with one of the clearest articulations coming in January 2008<\/a>:<\/p>\n My default position is to vote “no” on all of them (except for the ballot initiative to eliminate the ballot initiative, I’d vote “yes” for that one). Is there a really good reason I should consider casting a “yes” vote for any of them? For those of you following Golden State politics closely, please chime in.<\/p>\n Update: Thanks for the advice guys. I’m sticking with “no” on everything. I hate ballot box budgeting and changes to the state constitution make me leery. So while I was as conflicted as the community on 92, since it’s a worthy cause, any conflict is resolved toward the negative.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is one form of an argument that usually goes something like this: “it’s the legislature’s job to make laws, not the voters’. I’m going to vote no on everything because I don’t want the system to get screwed up even worse.”<\/p>\n There’s no doubt that the ballot initiative process in California is flawed and needs reform. But to vote “no” on all initiatives, regardless of their content, is to declare unilateral disarmament in the middle of a political war. A no vote on all initiatives, even progressive initiatives, hands victory to the right-wing and the corporations when it comes to progressive initiatives that are usually difficult to pass.<\/p>\n The fact is that the initiative process, like the United States Senate, is massively flawed but is also part of our politics. We cannot simply refuse to fight because we don’t like the process. Just as no sensible progressive would suggest we boycott US Senate elections this fall in a protest against the failure of the Senate to address this country’s problems, no sensible California progressive should suggest we surrender the ballot initiative fight in a protest against the flaws of that process.<\/p>\n Like a vote for Ralph Nader, or a decision to not vote at all, a “default no” on ballot propositions is a particularly pointless act of political protest. It does not do anything to help improve the state legislature, because as Joe Mathews and Mark Paul have very ably explained in their new book California Crackup<\/em>, the legislature is broken not just because of the initiative process but because of things like the 2\/3rds rule and other systematic problems that cannot be addressed solely by initiative reform.<\/p>\n Further, the “default no” approach is flawed because it so often hands victory to corporations when progressives refuse to support progressive policies that can only be enacted at the ballot box. In 2006 and again in June 2010 some form of public financing went onto the ballot, and in June it suffered a particularly close defeat. Any progressive who voted No on Prop 15 because they take a “default no” on the initiatives helped hand a major victory to corporations while undermining one of the most important progressive goals we have today: public financing of elections.<\/p>\n The November 2010 ballot provides a textbook – and very important – example of how a “no on everything” vote undermines not only progressives, but actually blocks an effort to fix the legislature so “they can do their jobs” and hopefully lead to fewer flawed ballot measures.<\/p>\n Proposition 25<\/a> would restore majority rule to the budget process. It would end the 2\/3rds requirement to pass a budget, which has led to crippling gridlock in Sacramento as budgets are routinely delayed not by weeks but by months as right-wingers use their veto power conferred on them by the 2\/3rds rule to undermine progressive proposals and further worsen an already broken budget and government.<\/p>\n Someone taking a “default no” approach to the November 2010 initiatives would therefore be prolonging the gridlock in the legislature and would be joining such progressive leaders as Chevron, the California Chamber of Commerce, Meg Whitman, the Howard Jarvis Association, and Tom McClintock in defeating a proposal that would restore some progressive power and help enable further reforms to fix the legislature. In this case in particular, a “default no” from any progressive becomes worse than futile – it becomes a de facto<\/em> vote for right-wing policy.<\/p>\n We can see other examples of this on the November 2010 ballot. Prop 24<\/a> would hike taxes on large corporations by closing a tax loophole created in the 2008 and 2009 budget deals. Are progressives seriously going to oppose that? Prop 21<\/a> would guarantee the long-term future of state parks as well as freeing up hundreds of millions of dollars each year to the general fund. Why would progressives oppose this, and put state parks at jeopardy of being sold off to private developers?<\/p>\n Good progressive political activism is that which engages in the fights that are before us, while also making long-term plans to improve the battlefield itself. We absolutely must reform the initiative process, as part of a broader fix to California’s broken government. But we won’t get there with the unilateral disarmament of a “no on everything” approach to ballot propositions. Progressives need to get informed and make the right decisions.<\/p>\n