A commenter last week got me thinking about South Dakotans' political maturity and capability. We put three measures on our 2012 ballot by petition, then voted all three down. We killed two really bad ideas from the Governor and one kinda bad idea from a citizens' group. Our two referenda and one initiative promoted some worthwhile policy conversation among the electorate, more than we get from our discussion of candidates for office.
But initiative and referendum are costly, clunky, and untimely processes. Hundreds of people have to walk around neighborhoods, interrupt folks in their daily routines, and gather thousands of signatures to put questions on the ballot. We can't amend and improve those measures in a given election cycle; we can only vote Yes or No.
So maybe the time has come to update our initiative and referendum statutes to reflect the democratic and technological capabilities of the 21st century. Maybe the time has come to integrate direct democracy in our annual legislative process. Maybe the time has come to express the constitutionally designated legislative power of the people in the Online People's Assembly. Here's my plan:
- Abolish the South Dakota House of Representatives. (My blogospheric colleague Douglas Wiken will love that!)
- Replace its authority with an Online People's Assembly, consisting of all South Dakota registered voters.
- Continue to run bills normally through the South Dakota Senate.
- All bills passing Senate committee and floor votes are posted to a special wiki on the Legislature's website for a 31-day period.
- South Dakota citizens have two weeks to comment on Senate-approved bills.
- Any Senate-approved bill receiving fewer than 16,000 unique views go to the Governor for signature or veto.
- Any Senate-approved bill receiving more than 16,000 unique views is open for public amendment and debate.
- Citizens may submit and vote on amendments to such pending legislation via the wiki.
- Approved amendments are locked in at the end of Day 24 of the posting period.
- Citizens vote online for the final form of the bill from Day 25 to Day 31.
- Bills receiving a majority vote from wiki participants are considered approved by the Online People's Assembly.
- Amended bills go to back to the Senate for a straight up-or-down reconciliation vote.
- The President Pro-Tem of the Senate must introduce all citizen-approved bills by shouting, "OPA!"
- The Governor may veto bills approved by the Online People's Assembly.
We can also include a mechanism for the Online People's Assembly to introduce bills during the first month of the legislative session. If you like initiative and referendum, you'll love the Online People's Assembly! (That means Dennis Daugaard will hate it... which makes me like it all the more.)
We have the technology to make a project like this work (as long as you don't put Jason Gant's people in charge of it). Legislators, I'm looking for a sponsor for this Constitutional amendment!
Bravo Cory. A capitol idea! I think Stace Nelson should introduce it.
I could only support this proposal if the President Pro-Tem would be required to smash a plate against the wall when shouting "OPA!"
Good call! Why not? It would save travel money and we would not have to heat that part of the building any longer either. This is what I call getting government so small you can drown it in a bathtub. Your plan would most certainly make it the people's house and would run much more smoothly for the good of us all.
It could be a model for doing the same with the U.S. House someday. It's ridiculous, given today's technology, that a diverse state like ours has to put up with being represented by one person (regardless of who that person is, it's an impossible assignment.) People's House? Hardly.
Besides, you can't gerrymander the world wide web.
The OPA doesn’t seem practical because of the access and expense of online forums would favor wealthier citizens, but you’re right that the frequency of initiatives and referenda is burdensome for voters and indicates something is wrong and getting worse in the State Capitol. It is time for a large and introspective discussion about reforming the way issues are decided in Pierre.
Your thoughts, Cory, lead me to think that serious consideration of a unicameral is in order, and the easiest route would be to eliminate the S.D. House of Representatives.
The result of 105 legislators in Pierre is that it lacks the purposefulness and seriousness of legislatures 20 years and longer ago. More and more, the 105-member clubhouse functions like an unaccountable echo chamber from a political blog. Legislation and debate seem far more intended to float balloons to inspire a political base than aimed at solving real problems. Frankly, I think the legislature and the governor need to be the object of reforms to shut down the echo chamber and provide immediate accountability. A unicameral would:
- Thin the herd from 105 House and Senate members to just 35 Senators. For a state of 750,000 people, 35 legislators is adequate representation. Less cacophony.
- Make the office of State Senator a higher prized office that would be taken more seriously by the office holder and the people in the Senate district. I think the House has turned into a farm team for the Senate. It functions to protect term-limited Senators for a cycle (Frank Kloucek, a Democrat example) and as an official sounding board for goofier, less serious bullhorns (Lora Hubbel, a Republican example) who couldn’t and shouldn’t win a more visible Senate seat.
- Make the legislature a more serious branch of government in the eyes of the office holders and the public who elected them. There will be less time and room for silly legislation. It would force the 35-member legislature to focus on the real problems with the limited time they have to meet.
Ted Muenster, an esteemed statesman and native Nebraskan, used to suggest a unicameral for South Dakota when discussions would turn to reforming the process in Pierre. I didn’t think it was applicable to South Dakota, but the legislatures of the last 10 years have been so meaningless and problematic that it may be time to thin the herd in Pierre and improve the debate.
Having visited the Nebraska unicameral in recent years, I could see this work very well in South Dakota. I don’t think it’s necessary to make it a non-partisan legislature as in Nebraska. I also think term limits that were voted in recent years in the Nebraska legislature has hurt the integrity and institutional memory of the unicameral. I would argue for the removal of term limits if South Dakota adopted a unicameral because the executive branch already has too much power.
Just some thoughts. Thinning the herd in Pierre and making a legislative post a more accountable and respected position could go a long way to improving state government.
I usually agree with you Dougal, but not so much on this. More people have online access than you might guess, and far more people in SD have internet access than have access to lobbyists. I understand that we are, in toto a republic and not a democracy, but our government does have its democratic components, one of which is I&R (at least on the state level) and the other is (supposedly) the House of Representatives. The latter, against the democratic intent is simply outdated and needs to be brought up to speed.
Nice try, Cory. I love the initiative and referendum, but I think anyone who has worked trying to get more citizen participation in government is going to recognize that the problem really isn't access as much as it is working knowledge and motivation.
On-line government would be about as successful as on-line education---the motivated would do OK, but it's not for most people. The Legislative Research Council has a great website that allows people great access to bills and to hearings. To understand most legislation you have to have time to sit an listen to testimony in hearings. There aren't many people who would do that.
Initiative and referendum are supposed to be a bit clunky. Only really important or controversial topics should be dealt with through the ballot.
The unicameral and a non-partisan Legislature are interesting ideas, but they are not likely to happen. In my experience legislators were most receptive to citizens and most creative when there was a rough balance between the parties. Anytime there is one-party dominance, anything approaching creative thinking and honest representation is lost.
Don and Dougal, I think you guys may be framing everything in terms of the past. Connectedness and technology are the hallmark of today's youth, and the way to engage them in politics is via their media of choice.
Tools that can (and recently have) fomented revolution should be acknowledged and embraced by politicians, not ignored.
Cory's idea will be the way it's done 20 years from now, I suspect.
And we old farts won't have a dang thing to say about it, except to jump online and vote (or just sit in our rocking chairs and bitch). LOL.
This would give too much power to the urban areas. Instead we should make the House 66 members, one from each county. Nemec should understand how that would be a great idea.
Would the official song be Gangnam Style?
Bill - You're right that some kind of online function will be used in the future ... probably after we old farts are off the planet and online access is completely universal, inexpensive and ordinary. I'm throwing the unicameral into the discussion because the lousy quality of debate and legislation in Pierre seems to get worse and more unaccountable, except for the tried and true backstop of I&R. It's time for a remedy or, at least, a state discussion involving citizens and not just their representatives in Pierre who seem to not care.
Don - What's most untenable is continuing the crappy system in Pierre which makes serving as a legislator a bad joke. While I'm a strong partisan Democrat, it appears that Republicans win when people don't pay attention and the garbage like Daugaard's education and corporate welfare bills end up cluttering a ballot. Those bills were controversial in the ivory tower we call the State Capitol, but were ignored by regular folks in Rapid City, Aberdeen, Sioux Falls and points in between because the quality of news stories was shallow or because people just give up following the events in Pierre. Obviously, due to the results of the ballot issues, people disapprove of the ideas, but they are checked out while the one-party machine holds its nose and votes to accept really bad bills because the governor orders them to fall in line. Yes, we can say bad legislators can be replaced in the next election, but it isn't happening. There is a disconnect here between irresponsible office holders and their bad votes, other than last minute postcard blitzes before an election when voters reject the allegations as desperation. How can that be changed now without having to await us old farts dying off (or a zombie apocalypse)?
Steve - I share your concern for rural representation. The districts are divided according to the latest census in nearly equal populations, which is fair. But do you think you're going to have a tough time arguing the fairness and logic of telling a county with 50,000 population why they have the same number of legislators as a county with 6,000? Where this urban advantage evens out is in the process. A legislator from Sioux Falls is going to have trouble getting votes for an urban issue if he/she can't bend for a ag issue that's important to Hand County. This is a lesson that's lost on Noem and Thune who argue for eliminating earmarks when a state with one voice in a chamber of 435 House members depends on earmarks and other horsetrading gimmicks to support South Dakota's economy.
Great idea on paper, not in reality. The levels of security needed to ensure it's integrity would have the left screaming voter suppression in a matter of minutes. I would never trust gov't security specialists and I doubt you would let it be farmed out to a 3rd party in the private sector. Gov't will never keep up with the technology to make it safe and reliable. The brains will always be outside of gov't trying to mess up their program. That much faith in their abilities is kind of scary. Don't expect pencil and paper to be replaced anytime soon.
If DB were right, Amazon.com wouldn't be in business. Nor would we have online banking and/or trading. That's just paranoid, luddite horsepucky, DB. ;^)
The first thing we should do is get rid of term limits...why South Dakota has disenfranchised itself to not have the best people in office at all times astounds me. That's what creates the "farming" of HOR to the Senate. We have always had the power to "throw the bums out" in the next election cycle. The second thing I would like is to be a unicameral legislature. Especially living West River, all you have to do to get elected is have an "R" behind your name. The demonization of Independents and Democrats by the *mostly* crazy wing of the Republican party ensures that no one can get elected out here. Third, there should be some kind of moratorium on the divisive social issues that the same people bring up every year that takes up legislative time that could be better spent on solving our state's problems. The money saved from defending crappy social legislation would help balance our budget...speaking of which, if we already had to balance our budget, why did we need to have a "balanced budget" amendment on our ballot? Waste of time, if you ask me.
I remember the glee in 1992 with which former Rep. John Timmer campaigned and won the ballot issue to amend the constitution to force legislative term limits. Timmer cited Congress as the problem needing to be fixed with term limits, but lacked the federal constitutional authority to do so. He and a majority of voters felt reform needed to start at home.
Predictably then (I voted against it for obvious reasons), they weakened the Legislature and killed the institutional memory of the second branch of government. Two years later, Bill Janklow returned and his bad ideas rammed through the legislature like a hot knife through butter. The worst idea was gutting the juvenile justice system so he could keep his fatal boot camp open. Now, 20 years later we have arguably the dumbest legislature since statehood.
Voters are too skeptical and poorly informed to kill term limits because they think it was a reform, when it only strengthened the hand of the executive branch. I'd vote for a repeal or at least a lengthening of the limit another four or eight years.
"But do you think you're going to have a tough time arguing the fairness and logic of telling a county with 50,000 population why they have the same number of legislators as a county with 6,000?"
So the US Senate should no longer send 2 Senators per state?
That's why there is a House of Representatives based on population. The two things (Senate, HOR) balance things out. All bills emanate from the House (the people's actual representation) and are approved/negotiated by the Senate.
Bill (et al.),
I have to agree with DB on this one. Amazon is very much a party in the private sector, where they have both economic incentives to do security right, and the ability to attract people capable of doing it right. So, would you be willing to contract out the OPA to a company like Amazon?
"The two things (Senate, HOR) balance things out."
But both chambers in the South Dakota Legislature is based on population. There is not balance in South Dakota. And you fools want to take that real time with this Marxist plan that Cory has cooked up. Talking about dim bulbs!
Mad hacker's dream come true.
Amazon has actually dealt with a breach in their subsidiary, Zappos.com. Online banking breaches happen yearly in SD. I've had to deal with them before and it's not fun. The private sector is definitely better at security than the gov't when it comes to technology, but I'm not sure even they could provide the level of security that would be needed to keep something like Cory suggested alive and reliable. Then, there is the other question, would the level of security that is needed be more of a deterrent to people who want to voice their opinions? Security always comes at a cost.
Bill and other techie advocates,
Yes, connectedness of modern technology allows for fast consideration of everyone's opinion. Opinions aren't what's lacking in many instances, however. It's facts. If you want a system that considers complicated legislation in nanoseconds, then, this system would work. We don't need fast, though. We need more thorough.
The main problem I saw in the Legislature was too much speed in considering legislation, especially large bills making large or controversial changes. Technology has made this problem worse. The need to slow down legislation so that all the facts can come out and all the implications can be understood is often far more important.
That makes sense Don. Wouldn't it be cool if the legislators we have now actually wrote and read the bills they pass? What a concept! ;^)
Nick: I second the plate motion. We'll take the cost out of Jason Gant's salary.
So DB, get your brain in gear and figure out how to make it work. I suspect we can make an online legislation discussion forum at least as secure as the vote-counting machines we trust to pick our elected officials.
Dougal, I understand the cost/access argument. But as Bill points out, a huge portion of South Dakotans are carrying around all the equipment they need to participate in the OPA in their pockets. If there is a digital divide that keeps lower-income folks from participating in the OPA as effectively as rich folks, we must compare that disadvantage to the disadvantage in which participation in the legislative process favors wealthy candidates and lobbyists. Most working people are practically excluded from running for Legislature; the OPA gives those people an opportunity to participate directly in policymaking without having to miss work for two months straight.
Lust sucks up to Nelson, Russell:
http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/kicked-out-of-caucus-to-go-to-gop-meeting/article_e9d65d1a-2e18-5e8b-982c-f3499f6e8464.html
Steve, I recognize your concern for rural areas. I think going to one-seat-per-county goes too far. But how about this: the Senate stays small, 35 population-based districts. The Online People's Assembly is open to everyone; however, for the OPA to take up a bill, in addition to the 16,000 unique views (or comments, or votes to refer, discuss, amend), the bill must also receive from at least 11 counties a number of views/votes/what-have-you equal to 5% (10%) of their registered voter totals. In other words, the call to refer a bill to the OPA can't come exclusively from 16,000 cranky folks in Rapid City and Sioux Falls. There must be a significant number of people from several other counties calling for review. Create a similar total vote/county quota system for votes on amendments and final bill disposition. Steve, I know there's no allaying your fears of Marxism, but would a proposal like that at least allay your concerns about rural representation?
"So DB, get your brain in gear and figure out how to make it work. I suspect we can make an online legislation discussion forum at least as secure as the vote-counting machines we trust to pick our elected officials."
I suspect that this will never happen.
I've suggested this before. It is the only way to get corporate out of state money out of our elections.
It is probably too good of an idea to ever happen.
Stan, we still have to do comparative risk assessment. To what extent can our current system be "hacked"—i.e., to what extent can lobbyists, corporate money, and other entities sway the vote in ways that fail to reflect the general will?
One sharp cracker could change a whole bunch of close votes before anybody suspected a thing.
If anybody ever suspected anything before a rogue solar flare ends the whole Internet utopia wet dream.
Which, someday, it will.
Cory, I believe in a representative form of governemnt, not a direct democracy. One county one vote in one of the chambers is something that even Charlie Hoffman agrees with me on. And we don't agree on much. In fact he even mentioned during a State Affairs meeting as a side note last session.
I hope one of those rogue solar flares don't take out my car too.
Interesting idea. As mentioned in the comments above we are still some years away from any system such as this (especially since the whole democratic vs representative approach has to be debated). But I do think it would be good to create more two-way interaction between Pierre and residents of South Dakota.
Steve, I'm not convinced that counties deserve such consideration under a state government the same way that states do under the federal constitution. If the argument is that these subordinate governing entities define who ought to have authority, then should we also grant each municipality a representative in Pierre?
Ken, both the representative republican model and the direct democratic model have their pluses and minuses. Adding the OPA creates checks and balances between the two.
Petition to pardon Leonard Peltier:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-leonard-peltier/FjPdWxXG
I would be very much in favor of 35 (or less) permanent senate geographic districts, based off of the same principle as the US Senate. I also supported the single representative district bill that Rep Gibson proposed during special session last year. I think both would provide South Dakotans better access to their legislators.
Why should the reservations buy into that plan, Stace?
I, for one, am glad to see Mr. Nelson back posting and want him to know that the EFS PAC is up to $85 and climbing by the day.
With Messrs. Hoffman and Hickey also missing I figured that Mr. Lust had ordered everybody that there would be NO BLOGGING.
Stace doesn't look like an idiot when he posts - unlike others. I, for one, am glad I am not a legislator and never will be one. I'd hate to have to be polite all the time.
Grudz - I wasn't mocking you with the "I, for one" bit lol. Didn't even realize I was copying you. Subconscious admiration I suppose.
I, for one, didn't mind it one bit, Mrs. S.
Happy Thanksgiving to all!
Larry, the reservations already have the single-Rep district plan.
And dang it, quit being all nice to each other! We're supposed to be arguing! ;-P