Here is the Main Reason I believe that voting is a joke

I strongly believe in the right to vote, otherwise I don't feel I have the right to criticize a decision (whether I agree or disagree) if I didn't participate in the vote. What bothers me even more goes along with your thinking. After a decision is made, the loser then goes to the courts and a long and expensive process begins to try and overturn a decision that was reached through proper channels. To me, this is not democracy, and we are seeing it happen more and more. It has to stopped, and the sooner the better.

It is relatively easy to persuade people to follow a leader, or agree with a very bad idea.  Our prime example is that Hitler was an elected leader, and his policies of enslaving or executing Jews, gays, black, and cripples were the legal policy of the government.  The people supported his party in the elections and continued to rally behind him as he began his conquest of the world.

The idea in the US is that government responsibility is in three parts that balance the fairness and justice of each other.  The courts are guided by established laws and traditions, and when all else fails to resolve differences they refer to the constitution.  State "Supreme Courts" are goverened by the State Constitution and the Federal Supreme Court is guided by the US Constitution.  Even laws passed by congress are subject to this kind of oversight, and just because one political party might decide that, for a silly example, that "mashmallows are a danger to the security of the state" and therefore no marshmallow companies could continue to operate, passing a law to enforce this believe, the courts could (and should) reasonably decide that the law is not reasonable.

The general sentiment among a large number of people is that most of the drug laws are unfair and unfounded, but there is sufficient legal history and conservative support that people passing laws legalizing the use of marijuana for "health" (medical) reasons may not be "constitutional" (according to the particular state's constitution) because it would violate federal statutes or regulations.

Is it always what we want to see as an outcome, that popular issues are voted on by people and the courts "reverse" the will of the people?  No, of course not, but this is also why we must pay attention to our politicians' attitudes on the issues so that the judges appointed to the courts (ESPECIALLY the SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES) will be those most likely to agree with the attitudes of those who appointed them.  Should there be "proof" that they will rule in a particular way?  No, I don't think there should but if you can rely upon them to look at each case fairly and have a general outlook that agrees with you (or more specifically the politicians you elect) then the court decisions are more likely to be ones that you agree with too.

love

Stafford "Doc" Williamson

make it a greener world, support "waste to energy" programs like those from http://winfotech.com/energy/daochi-energy-brochure.pdf 

Dr Goo,

From Maya Goo,

I can only agree with you on this one . i no longer believe the usa is a democracy anymore, no matter how we vote, it just does not seem to matter. like a ridiculous waste of time. the powers that be, whoever they are-(ex. "the superdelegates") i was hoping on hillary and now  i am losing hope. losing hope in ....you know the rest because it goes on and on. Maya g

                                                                            

Voting is not a joke.  People often treat it like a joke.  Some people try to use the Initiative process to write discrimination into the law or overturn rules they disagree with or could financially benefit from if the people vote them into law (like Prop 98 destroys rent control).  Remember Prop 187? Remember how much of that was declared un-Constitutional? Because the court ruled on the same sex marriage issue based on the California State Constitution, not Prop 22, the California Constitution is quite clear about the equality of people under the law.  We need to step back, take a deep breath and really look deep at this issue and ask ourselves why we would deny two consenting adults to enter into a contractual agreement to live their lives as they see fit and in the final analysis, doesn't the State really have an interest in supporting these situations instead of denying people the same rights that others enjoy?  Same-sex marriage will have zero impact on my life, but will have significant impact on those that seek the benefits and legal stability marriage provides.  God Bless them all.

There is an old saying, "if voting changed anything, it wouldn't be legal".