Mathews: Why the California ballot should have counterproposals

A fair process to present competing ballot measures would offer voters more clarity about their choices.

“No man is happy but by comparison.”— Thomas Shadwell, poet laureate, United Kingdom (1689-1692)

If you want to better understand the true nature of a proposal, consider a counterproposal. 

Looking at competing proposals forces you to reckon with the details of each idea.

Which is why every proposition on the California ballot should have a counterproposal.

I suggest this now because of a nasty fight in the state Capitol earlier this summer. The fight was over a November ballot initiative to increase penalties for some drug and retail theft crimes, and a possible countermeasure offered by the governor and Legislature.

The details of the dispute are too complicated to be here. But Democratic leaders were seeking to use the countermeasure (and some related bills) to confuse voters and sabotage the initiative. 

In the end, with Democrats facing accusations of “election interference” from the media and Republicans, Gov. Gavin Newsom dropped the countermeasure. 

Which was too bad. Voters would have benefited from a clear choice.

The controversy exposed a problem with California’s direct democracy. There is no fair and voter-centered process for putting countermeasures on the ballot.

But it would be easy to put one in place. 

Some countries with direct democracy have just such an established process for encouraging counterproposals. Switzerland, with a ballot initiative system that inspired California’s own, has the best.

Both Switzerland and California have similar processes allowing for negotiations between legislative bodies and initiative proponents. If those negotiations produce a compromise, the initiative can be removed from the ballot. 

If those negotiations fail, as they often do, initiative supporters go forward with their measure. The legislative body is free to put its own countermeasure on the ballot. 

The difference between Switzerland and California is that California has no clear rules that govern these countermeasures. As a result, California countermeasures can be presented on ballots in ways that are haphazard or unfair. The measures aren’t linked together on the ballot, which confuses voters. 

The Swiss have a fair standard process for countermeasures. Each countermeasure is clearly labeled as such, and placed on the ballot right next to the initiative to which it responds. If California adopted this process, countermeasures would be labeled with the same proposition number as the initiative (the initiative might be 24A and the countermeasure 24B), and with language that made clear that the measures were competing proposals on the same subject.

In a Swiss-style process, California voters would have three questions to answer on each initiative. Yes or no on the initiative. Yes or no on the countermeasure. And then a third choice: If both of these measures pass, which one do you want to go into effect?

The benefits of such a three-part question would be obvious. Voters would have more clarity about their choices — and more power, regardless of whether their preferred outcome wins or loses. Even voters who oppose both the initiative and the countermeasure would be able to register a preference for the one they object to least. Ultimately, voting results would more closely match voter preferences.

This also will produce better campaigns.

Right now, we California voters consider each initiative separately. We learn few details of the measures. Instead, we vote based on our feelings about an issue, or by following the endorsements in a partisan voter guide.

A Swiss-style comparative campaign — where voters must choose between an initiative and counterproposal — forces voters, and the media, to delve into the details of the two measures. Because the natural question to ask of competing measures is: What is the difference between them? Answering that question requires looking at the actual language and policy detail.

Californians won’t have that option this November. Instead, their choices will be one measure, Prop 36, that proposes harder-line solutions to drug and theft problems — or maintaining the status quo.

A clear and fair process would have produced more choices for voters.

So, let’s give the people a counterproposal now.

Joe Mathews writes the Connecting California column for Zócalo Public Square.