Referendums and low-engagement voters produce catastrophic outcomes (but what about corruption?)

[kennykb]

I really like New York’s procedure for amendments to the state constitution. An amendment must either be proposed by a constitutional convention or else by passed by a supermajority of both houses in two consecutive sessions of the state legislature (so that an election of the legislators will intervene). Only then does the proposed amendment go for popular referendum.

I’m usually inclined toward the status quo (better the Devil you know etc…) but in recent years the only referendum on which I voted ‘no’ was a convention call.

I’'m perfectly fine with protection of puppies being a police power reserved to the states.

[jpc2769]

“doing away with referenda will abolish an important check on corruption”

I fail to see how an electorate that is not sufficiently engaged to check corruption through the regular voting process is going to magically get engaged enough to do so through a referendum.