Forum Post: My Very Brief Argument in Favor of Direct Democracy
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 19, 2011, 2:04 p.m. EST by KarneyHatch
(10)
from Portland, OR
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
http://karneyhatch.com/karneyhatchdotcom/?p=372
Less than 800 words and I said everything I wanted to...
Direct democracy was not possible in the 18th century
interactive mass communication did not exist
We need the opposite. Too much populism is bad if it comes from the right or left. Activist judges on the court are bad sometimes its liberal judge out of control or Roy Moore type in Alabama want theological state.
It's definitely a very interesting point, although I would like to ask you about California. I'm not trying to discredit your ideas, but can you account for the problems that California had after implementing its current referendum system? Direct democracy is a great idea in theory, but there needs to be a minimal level of education, critical thinking skills, and common sense that we can count on the dumbest man in the country to have before I'll vote for it.
How about direct democracy as long as it doesnt conflict with the basic principles in the constitution? There may still be some issues. In california the majority voted for prop 8 which was against gay marriage. In some other tate they may vote to make segregation legal.
Again, the question is: would you rather have a "dumb" guy or a corrupt guy making decisions about how to run the country? I'll take an uncorrupted "average Joe" (or Jane) over a lobbyist or corrupt politician every time. And re: California. The referendum system is not direct democracy as most of its proponents envision it. Here is an excerpt from a letter to The Economist from Mike Gravel: "Legislating by referendum is not direct democracy, but rather a device used by a representative government to submit a measure to the electorate for an up-or-down vote. As a result, politicians control the process, which they continually limit or corrupt. More fundamentally, the structure of representative government keeps citizens in civic adolescence. We want the largesse of government, but are reluctant to pay for it. We give away our policymaking powers to elected politicians on Election Day, and then we blame them when things go wrong. That is the definition of civic adolescence. If citizens became deliberative lawmakers, they would be forced to take responsibility for the polices they help to enact. This would bring about a process of civic maturation, a development that could only benefit all facets of human life." To read the whole letter, go here: http://www.economist.com/node/18679417
My problem is that "dumb" guys are very easily misled by corrupt people, conspiracy theorists, trolls, etc. All that direct democracy would change is which propaganda machine or band of wackjobs the people would listen to and agree with. I don't think that people are born stupid, but it's almost impossible to enter a policy debate with little or no idea about the topic or the policy in question and be able to suggest a workable solution. I don't want our government's agenda to look like this forum (there are a fair number of gems here but the amount of crap you have to slog through to reach those gems is ridiculous). The set of people who know what they're doing and the set of people willing to listen to their constituents once in power should not be mutually exclusive, and I'm very uncomfortable with the notion that it is. I want a government full of well-trained, honest people and real, good-faith initiatives to fix our education system. Give it a generation or two after that's done and then I'll be fully on board with direct democracy.
Well said. But I still think the time for direct democracy is sooner rather than later. The beauty of it is that you transform a bunch of those uneducated folks into policy wonks, and quickly. As soon as individual people realize that their votes matter (because they're actually voting on them, rather than their representatives), people would start educating themselves very quickly about the issues. And this is where you have to make sure that their sources of information are good, etc, but there are plenty of good alternative news sources out there. People are not inherently stupid, as you said, and I think the "masses" would surprise you at how well they could make intelligent decisions about complex subjects. The mindless trolls and dittoheads of the Internet are the minority. Just ask yourself - how many of them do you know in real life? In my real life, the vast majority of the people I know from the other side of the political spectrum are intelligent and relatively open-minded. They Internet idiots are just a loud minority.
I hope so, and your idea is quite interesting. I mean, if a random person is willing and able to let public policy play a role in his life and willing to learn the issues well enough to vote on them then by all means move toward direct democracy. That said, I believe that real education reform and a return to the Fair Time Act should be pre- or at least corequisite to any such movement.
You make an argument and you say an 8th grader can make moral sense out of it. Where is the moral sense in claiming that the "ruling elite" wants to keep power out of the hands of the people?
Defend yourself. Who, with a name, which person in government wants to keep power out of the hands of the people?
Both the Democratic and Republican parties want to keep the power out of our hands. They are structured from top to bottom to answer to money, not to the concerns of everyday people. Also, they even work together to exclude rather than to include. Look at the Commission on Presidential Debates, for example. An extremely antidemocratic institution run jointly by the two ruling parties.
its not a specific person. Just look at the amount lobbyists donate to political campaigns and how much they spend on fabulous dinner parties and jet rides to entertain our congressmen.
Exactly. And remember, right now Occupy Wall Street is acting almost 100% as a direct democracy. Every member in the assembly gets a vote. And in their first major press release (the one read on air on Current TV) they explicitly mention DD.
lol what plasmastorm said sounds like something a 3rd grade teacher would tell her students
There is a reason that the Founding Fathers did not favor democracy - the vote of a majority can just as easily implement a great evil as it can a great good. There must be checks and balances and that can only be achieved as a very strictly adhered to, Constitutional Republic. Even so, I don't believe we have a Constitution any more... Just as a hypothetical example, the Fed government or any state or local government, for that matter, could just as easily pass legislation to cease all the wealth of the poor as readily as it has various assets under Eminent Domain. We would all cry "unfair" and "unjust," and then we would turn to the articles of the Constitution to defend ourselves, to prepare a defense. Ultimately, if the court voluntarily chose to even address the matter, it would go to the Supreme Court where a panel of judges would decide, yay, or nay. They might affirm or they might dissent, in whole or in part, but their ruling would have the effect of law. Worse, in this particular case, those in favor of ceasing all wealth of the working and middle class could cite Federal withholding as an existing and Constitutional example or precedent. The Constitution and the accompanying Bill of Rights - or actually the triumvirate of the Dec of Indep, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights - was intended to afford the maximum freedom to the majority. Any legislation that serves to amend in any way must exist in but one of two possible forms: either as redundant and an affirmation of, or, a further limit on the rights enumerated. All legislation is regulatory, meaning that it serves in some form form to further restrict those freedoms enumerated as "rights." Which incidentally were negotiated by the "people" over a one thousand year history ( and for a reason). Nothing else in terms of an amendment on the Articles is possible but the further restriction, in some form, of the rights enumerated. Where am I going with this? Well, not only do we NOT want a direct democracy which could very easily decide by consensus or a majority vote, to sentence all current members of Congress or any one else for that matter, to death... or in other words introduce an evil, but we also do not want so called "liberal" judges who as "Wise Men" sit in judgement to manipulate the Articles in the defense of one against another with the effect of introducing legislation that further regulates someone's freedom. Read the words of the Forefathers - the Constitution was intended as written to be simple enough to avoid this need of interpretation, but that's exactly what's occurring - legal arguments are being used in any number of ways by those who do not strictly adhere to restrict the rights of others. Our "Nation of Law" is unbending, unmerciful, in it's enforcement of that law. Why? Because the Constitution affords maximum freedom, and is intended by consensus of the majority, to be un-breachable. If you want to address democracy do it through the election process - do away for example with the 15% requirement of the Citizen's Task Force on Presidential debates which limits us to two parties only; and introduce "consensus democracy," as the Germans have, which requires that all those capable of carrying at least a 5% vote are represented proportionately in Congress. These two items would allow the voice of a minority to enter the Pres debates, and perhaps gain a majority through strength of character or presentation of issues, and in carrying such a percentage of the final election vote, ensure that Americans are represented proportionately in Congress. Corruption is every where... it may not stifle corruption, but even so, it seems or appears to be a more appropriate means of representation.
Yes I agree wholeheartedly about the Commission on Presidential Debates, and I think a multiparty system would be great. That being said, I still think direct democracy would serve us well. You don't understand it completely, obviously. Just because you have a direct democracy doesn't mean you throw out the Constitution, or even the checks and balances. You would still have three branches of government, the courts, the Bill of Rights, everything. The people would just replace the representatives in the legislative branch or, in some versions, the representatives would still be there, they would just more directly serve the will of the people.
I'm not sure I'm fully understanding your slant on "direct democracy." The legislative branch of our government consists of the House of Representatives which introduces bills, the Senate which decides these bills, and the President who must ultimately sign them. You are proposing that we replace them with the "people" - those that are there now then are not of the "people"? If you were saying we need to address the electoral college, I might agree... or if you were saying that we should return to a two party presidency, with the leading contender as Pres and the runner up as VP, regardless of party affiliation, I might also agree... You're right I don't understand ('splain please?)
PS: rough draft, "cease" = seize in the above (well, among other errors).
The President is the head of the executive, not part of the legislative. I'm suggesting that the legislative branch be re-worked so that citizens have a direct say on individual pieces of legislation. There are a variety of ideas for how to achieve this, but I think voting via phone and/or Internet are the most workable. There might still be representatives, but their votes would be bound based on the votes of their constituents, rather than bound by the money they're getting from rich donors and lobbyists for corporations.
I appreciate what you're trying to do here, I do... I think in its inception that the idea of someone as "representative" by a majority consensus of a regional constituency which began with delegates to the Constitutional conventions, was a very practical and perhaps more perfect means... the problem is that parties and corruption have usurped the voice of the individual. I'm feeling somewhat uncomfortable with the unforeseen here... but ok, you're right, and I'm listening. By the way, I believe the Pres does sign bills.