Michigan votes in favour of a new bridge.

Guess that you noticed that Michigan voters did not, on November 5  support the wishes of the local owners of the Ambassador Bridge to void the construction of a new one funded entirely by Canada.
About 60% of the electors at that presidential election night disagreed with the highly funded effort by the family to ignore the friendly overtures by their Ontario neighbours. It was certainly an interesting exercise, to determine the wishes of Michiganders by a democratic referendum.
Many other interesting questions were answered in similar fashions on that same day by   the twenty or so other states that  allow such demonstrations of democratic feeling. For example, Washington and Colorado (but not Oregon) voters felt it should be legal to smoke small quantities of marijuana. This result was despite the fact that such laws are federal in nature. It will clearly be more difficult to enforce them in those states; and - probably also in the adjacent province of British Columbia.
And three more states voted contrary to the majority of others in the country to permit same-sex marriages. All of this going on next door to  us, while we in Canada ignore the fact that our laws do  not permit such voices of democracy to speak. Will we, in Ontario, Canada, ever reach the 21st Century, where easier means of communication almost  demand better means for the citizens to express their points of view?

A new bridge from Windsor to Detroit?

Very interesting referendum taking place in Michigan on Nov. 5. It relates to the proposed, new bridge from Windsor, which Canada is saying it will pay for, completely - including access points from Detroit. The major legislators from rather  deep debt, Michigan are, perhaps naturally, much in favour, with its friendly neighbour . But, the family which   owns the current Ambassador bridge,  and has a virtual monopoly over nearby cross-border traffic is strongly opposed. And, by Michigan law, if they obtain sufficient signatures upon an appropriate petition, they can force a vote by the citizens upon the issue. Furthermore, if they disclose how much money is being spent towards advertising their cause (now up to 31 Million dollars) it can try as hard as they want to persuade their fellow citizens  to vote their way. Ontario has spent a lot of money already preparing for the entranceways, anticipating approvals from Michigan. One might feel that the cause is obvious. No cost to Michigan, a new bridge to help overcome, anticipated  increasing traffic. But there are some reasons, it seems, to oppose it, besides the desire to maintain the current monopoly. An editorial in the National Post on Oct. 31, points out many negative points  that might not have been obvious otherwise. Anyway, we shall see what the democratic voices of Michiganders have to say about the new , proposed international bridge on Tuesday. Would that we in Ontario had opportunities to vote upon some issues happening up here; (such as prerogation of parliament to permit new leaderships?)

Same-sex marriage voting in USA

Four states in the USA are holding referendums in November to legalize same-sex marriage. The Economist magazine in its Sept. 15 issue suggests that they are likely to pass. This despite the fact that at the last referendum on the subject , in California,  and at least ten other states, the public voted against the idea. Campaigners seem to be very active upon both sides in trying to persuade the voters. But according to recent polls more young adults, in particular, are moving behind support of the idea. Personally, this writer is very much opposed to the concept. However, if it is the will of the majority, then in a democratic society (in which many US states clearly reside, where votes of their citizens can determine issues), then one must respect such choices. If only Ontario was truly democratic, it could decide some issues that way also.  This would be rather than simply permitting representatives of parties to decide questionable issues, without in any way consulting their voters, as happened just a couple of years ago, re: same-sex marriage in Canada.  Maybe we citizens might vote the idea down, as in California, and elsewhere.

Casinos not to be decided by the public in Ontario?

Democracy in North Bay - and elsewhere in Ontario is not followed when it comes to allowing gambling casinos. The ten councillors and mayor in North bay pretend to be democratic. They knew that the province might permit a casino to be emplaced there. And so, they, pretending to be very proper and righteous called a public meeting  where the idea would be discussed. The vast majority of people present voiced strong objections. Many including the past mayor and current member of provincial parliament, asked them to hold a referendum upon the idea. But by a ten to one vote in mid September, 2012 the council decided that they would encourage such casino.  No need to ask their constituents. Isn't that shameful? Pretending to  be democratic, but upon a very significant question, about which none had used their opinions at the last election to indicate their position,  they simply ram-roaded home their viewpoint, or own conclusion. When will we, the public, wake up to the need to force our elected reps to heed our views on important issues via properly pursued referendums? Other states and municipalities effectively follow such democratic routes. In this modern age of advanced communication and knowledge we, in Ontario, are still in the middle ages when it comes to the running of our affairs, it seems.

Georgians vote against improving their roads!

The Economist magazine recently has criticized the voters in the state of Georgia who voted heavily against a referendum held there. The question put to the voters in a July statewide primary  was pretty simple; - to impose a temporary 1% sales tax in order to fund some much needed transportation projects. Money raised in the 12 regions of Georgia would be used to improve roads within each area. It would come up for renewal after ten years; if required revenue would be raised before then, the tax would go away. But, in nine of the 12 regions the voters said - no. "Tea-partiers" thought it was too much, and Sierra Club supporters considered it too little. But, what it did was to prove to the authorities that the people had minds of their own. To put a similar vote to the people must wait another 4 years - the approving of a ballot measure, creating a new list and voting again would take that long.  Let us hope that Georgia finds simpler solutions perhaps to their transport requirements.  

Federal spokesmen in USA opposing pot referendums

You have noticed the number of states where referendums are being pursued this November to deciminalize marijuana. Well, according to Reuters, it seems that nine former heads of the federal Drug Enforcement Administration are urging the Attorney General to take a serious stand against the possibility that some of the votes may be positive. "To continue to remain silent conveys to the American public and the global community a tacit acceptance of these dangerous initiatives," said the message. It seems that the message is similar to one used in a California initiative in 2010 that ultimately failed, with 53.5% of voters then, rejecting the idea. Public Referendums are powerful voices in a democracy. They must be listened to. They should be used more.

Marijuana laws to change in 8 US states?

Just noticed that there are seven states altogether pursuing  referendums about the legalization of marijuana during the upcoming November election. They are all proposing somewhat different details towards the same, general idea. The other states, besides Colorado, are: - Michigan, Missouri, Montana, California, Nebraska, Oregon and Washington.   Will Direct Democracy create changes in some significant legal areas, or will the people vote it down. Tune in in November!