Ok, yeah I can agree with that, we don’t have armed guards on every street corner and there is some restraint on this, we may find a way through this.
Dara, I tried to reply by email but it failed for some reason.
Anyway, I wrote that both proposals (Gravel’s and eliminating the Senate) would require a Constitutional Amendment. So procedurally they are about the same difficulty. However, I think empowering the people with more democracy is infinitely better. The people can then make further changes as they learn how to legislate. If you never actually read the NI4D procedures, they have been hashed out in great detail by constitutional experts and others who are very dedicated to the idea of initiative, referendum, and recall. Extensive open public debates on proposed initiatives are included in the procedures.
I also don’t understand why Bernie Sanders would want to hold onto the filibuster. I actually have not heard him say that.
During the seminars and other meetings over many years to design NI4D, the existing state initiative laws were thoroughly discussed. The final NI4D laws and procedures include solutions to the types of initiative problems seen in Washington state, California, and other initiative states. Of course nothing is ever perfect, but we have to start somewhere, and the people can learn and become proficient with time and experience - as Mike Gravel has said himself many times.
Please see my response to KC2669.
In case anyone is looking, here’s a link to the amendment and the enabling legislation: