He identified California’s direct democracy through the use of the initiative as the primary cause of our governmental morass.

The first leads toward dissection of how moneyed interests have been able to abuse direct democracy and an ignorant or too-harried electorate into passing bad laws; the second argues for eliminating the one tool the people have to hold these interests in check.
Be that as it may, let’s move on to canard number two: Our two-thirds majority requirement is a bad thing, and to blame for our budget mess.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. In fact, I would argue that the 2/3 requirement should apply across more areas – how about any jailable, nonviolent offense? Can you even imagine how much we could save, and how much more robust our economy and tax base would be, if the roughly eighty percent of presently imprisoned people in California who have done nothing threatening or violent to any other human on the planet, could be released and working productively? There is a very good chance we would not be where we are budget-wise, without these draconian and stupid laws.
[An aside: You assert bad initiatives like Prop 187 are responsible for this growth. Yet, what about initiatives like Prop 136? I think if you look at these two initiatives, and the implementation thereof, you will see something interesting. Prop 187 has been fully implemented, funded like crazy, expanded on, and goes unchecked towards its bad ends. Prop 136, on the other hand, has been fought at every level - courts, local governments, state government - limited, truncated and underfunded. Examine this difference, and I think you will begin to discern the real problem in our politics. Again, its not direct democracy.]
The two-thirds requirement makes sense, and your example of our own local Measure P is a good illustration. Here at the local level, our school district faces a budget crunch. Why do they need to hit every property owner in the Ojai Valley for an additional $89 per year, forever? Are you telling me the parents of kids in the Ojai public schools refused to kick down an additional $200, $300 or perhaps more for some of our more wealthy families, so that excellent teacher XX would not have to be laid off, or excellent program XXX could continue? Or, is it possible that the administration was not proposing a budget that the parents of kids in the schools support – forcing the administration to try to foist it on your uninformed public?
What I’m saying is, if $89 a year from a portion of property owners within the school district would plug the gap, assuredly the gap could also easily be plugged by the people closest to the situation ponying up – parents, etc. Foisting a new and permanent tax on people who are not close to the situation, and cannot evaluate whether the money is well spent or not, is a poor solution. The two-thirds majority requirement helps prevent that, however imperfectly.
There are quite a few more points, but I’ll have to leave it here for now. Here’s where I’m headed: The problem, to be fixed, requires a changing of the guard. Term limits doesn’t get you there, because that ends up putting the real power over budget issues in the hands of the lobbyists and legislative hangers-on who have no term limits (and fund these term limits initiatives). What we need, is more, better direct democracy; strong, constant and loud exposure of false ideas, ideologies and policies (such as the failed Republican ideology – turning Republicans into a fringe party, and fostering an intelligent replacement party such as the Greens, would go far to cure our ills); better media (California’s newspapers are atrocious; we need new media; blogs like the Ojai Post could contribute, writ large); and more of a stake for more people in this state, which will translate to a better informed, more participating electorate.