Voting 55%, not 2/3rds?
Just got off phone with a surveyor trying to find support for weakening the California requirement for two thirds vote to 55% for new state bonds. He had a cold and the phone killed half his words. The survey went on and on. Finally after asking age, race, sex and shoe size,
he said good bye. Told him to take care of his throat cold and said bye.
Then this thought struck:
If long term bonds required a long term vote, that is the voters must approve the new borrowing by voting 3 times for it over over three years, wouldn't that be better.
Since the long term citizens will pay, a more lengthy voting process seems advisable.
OR If approval of drivers was required to raise the gas tax.
Or smokers vote for tobacco tax. Or gamblers for taxes on wagering.
People who live in brick house shouldn't have to pay for the fools who choose to live in glass ones.
Stones for sale.