Common example:
Legislation dealing with the creation of a new tax or significant debt or increasing the rate/amount of an existing tax/debt requires the approval of a super-majority of both houses of the state legislature. A due process to protect minority interests.
That same legislative intent, when introduced into a direct democracy setting, requires only a simple majority. A simple majority of those who actually voted. Recent elections have demonstrated that as little as 15% of those eligible to vote can impose their will on the remaining 85%.
That is a serious, but easily resolvable, problem with California's present model of direct democracy. The system is further flawed because complexity, a favorite tool of the political class and special interests, tends to promote voter apathy and apathy further empowers an increasingly smaller minority, out of all proportion to the intent of California's Constitution or Hiram Johnson's original proposal.
A simple fix, which would not erode the will of the mob, would be to require a similar, super-majority in the direct democracy process, when encountering similar intent.
",,,Common example:
Legislation dealing with the creation of a new tax or significant debt or increasing the rate/amount of an existing tax/debt requires the approval of a super-majority of both houses of the state legislature. "
...Which has nothing at all to do with the bond issue at hand.
Why would you even think that "direct democracy" would have anything at all to do with ANY legislative votes by REPESENTATIVES ?
Your concept of some sort of "super majority" does NOTHING to reflect the will of the 85% (your number) of the people who are not eligible to vote.... when they didn't even elect those representatives !
Why would you think that any GIVEN percentage of people who CAN vote would correctly represent those who cannot ? ... simply absurd !