Talk:History of direct democracy in the United States

message: Calwatch edited in:
"However, poponents of five Strikes argued that such consequences were akin to a "lifetime achievement award", since a potential fifth striker would have to have committed ten violent and serious felonies beforehand."
I had the impression that any felonies counted, and precisely the Three Strikes problem was that felonies didn't have to be "violent and serious". Also I think the award metaphor needs to be somewhat better explained. Is it possible that I don't clearly understand it because it is a false analogy, and just a rhetorically distracting persuasion to change three strikes into two strikes?
:The third felony had to be violent and serious. Please see this page. To wit: Under the terms of Proposition 184, if a criminal has had one
previous serious or violent felony conviction, the mandatory sentence for a
second such conviction is doubled. After two violent or serious felony
convictions, any further felony, non violent or not, will trigger a third
strike; the mandatory sentence will then be the greater of: 1) three times
the term ordinarily required, 2) 25 years, or 3) a term determined by the
court.  Calwatch 06:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument was the "resentencing" provision that made Prop 66 retroactive. See this link: This measure requires the state to resentence offenders currently serving an indeterminate life sentence under the Three Strikes Law if their third strike resulted from a conviction for a nonviolent and nonserious felony offense, as defined by this proposition. Resentencing must occur no later than 180 days after this measure takes effect. The resentencing requirement will result in reduced prison sentences for some inmates and release from prison for others. For a legal discussion of the resentencing loophole, see here. Calwatch 06:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Presumptive NPOV/CON, I can't really tell it's too rambling and there appear to be several voices. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The Three Strikes Law example Criticism

message: Into one with past epochs and recent history first level §§ 
Past Epochs
*13 Colonies and Native Americans
*Early Republic
*19th Century
*20th Century
Recent History
* Local Level
* State Level
* Federal Level
** Article V call initiatives
** Article XII repeal initiatives
Created template and placed other material here for resolution of the article issues. The entries above Open Tasks are stale and prior to wikification of this talk page. Will archive them if no further comment. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructure/Expansion Suggestion 

message: The opening paragraph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_direct_democracy_in_the_United_States#Progressive_Era reads more like an editorial than an encyclopedia entry. 
It seems pretty long on bias and short on facts.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.47.127 (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: Substituted at 18:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Dr. Baskaran has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Baskaran has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
*Reference : Asatryan, Zareh & Baskaran, Thushyanthan & Grigoriadis, Theocharis & Heinemann, Friedrich, 2013. "Direct democracy and local public finances under cooperative federalism," ZEW Discussion Papers 13-038, ZEW - Zentrum fur Europaische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Baskaran's comment on this article