I'll preface this by saying I'm largely a supporter of the referendum process in my state of California, and I would be hesitant to give up the power it has given me. That's not to say I don't see some of the big problems caused by this system, though I'm not persuaded that the author has offered very practical or substantial solutions. "Initiatives should be far harder to introduce. They should be shorter and simple…
The problem is precisely that it's too difficult for grassroots volunteer groups to put measures on the ballot, while at the same time being too easy for well-funded private interests to get things on the ballot, which has resulted in the current distorted use of the initiative system. Most initiative signatures are not collected by volunteers, they're collected by paid signature gathering organizations. And that's t…
I must agree with you that there is likely more harmful legislation coming out of this process than beneficial, but I think that is largely a result of a lack of honest communication, as well as a lack of follow-through on the part of participating citizens.
I believe my proposed solution of having citizens sign petitions for an overarching policy goal, and then having them choose from a list of implementations under that goal, would do much to limit some of the more egregious manipulation of those signing petitions. People could sign a policy goal petition, providing a mailing address and email address, and once sufficient signatures are collected to get on the ballot, signatories would be sent a packet of competing initiatives to select from. The variant with the most votes gets all the petition signatures and gets on the ballot. This would give participating voters an opportunity to review what they're signing up for, and perhaps become more informed of various alternative proposals which would address the same putative issue. This will ultimately force special interests to fight on a more level playing field with competing interests.