I'll be the first to admit that it's not great. There's a pretty wide area between "great" and "unacceptable", and I think that prop 22 is in there.
Regarding 7/8 specifically, it's true that it's "not great" and it's also true that it is "better than the default".
Consider the authors' perspectives for a moment, if only to understand it. One party has a supermajority in the CA legislature, and they are openly hostile to prop 22. They didn't necessarily want an immutable proposition, but they also didn't want it to be immediately nullified. 7/8 seems like a way to guarantee that changes can be made if and only if there's broad bipartisan support for those changes.
You don't have to agree with that perspective but I think it should be said that there's a non-nefarious way to see it.
It's just a strange way to conceptualize the process. The whole concept of a ballot proposition is to give voters the final say on policy questions - if legislators could easily overturn propositions, what would be the point?
Both factors are relevant, but the final say thing is pretty characteristic of California. For bond measures, it's actually mandated by the state constitution - once the legislature passes a bill for a new bond program, they have to create a ballot proposition to ask voters for approval.
Regarding 7/8 specifically, it's true that it's "not great" and it's also true that it is "better than the default".
Consider the authors' perspectives for a moment, if only to understand it. One party has a supermajority in the CA legislature, and they are openly hostile to prop 22. They didn't necessarily want an immutable proposition, but they also didn't want it to be immediately nullified. 7/8 seems like a way to guarantee that changes can be made if and only if there's broad bipartisan support for those changes.
You don't have to agree with that perspective but I think it should be said that there's a non-nefarious way to see it.