Reply #4: Yes, for constitutional amendments: say, 60% or two-thirds margin. [View All]

[Unvanguard]

Makes more sense than the ratification by states process, with continues the ridiculous American tradition of biasing power toward people who happen to live in rural areas. And it strikes me as fundamentally in accordance with democratic principle that the people acting directly should have the final say about fundamental law. (To clarify, I would keep the requirement that amendment proposals require two-thirds majorities in the House and the Senate).

Probably not anything else, though. Policymaking requires technical considerations, values balancing, and coalition-building that large-scale referenda tend not to handle pretty well; most people don't have the time or the interest to consider a particular question in all its details. Democracy, at least beyond the highly decentralized level, works best with heuristics: you vote for representatives who broadly share your views (or who are closest to broadly sharing your views among the viable options), and they work out the details, while always subject to electoral accountability from the public.

California is a good example of how the initiative process can become disastrous.