WARNING: This comment contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.
I do think there are good reasons to have more direct democracy than the founders had (the logistics of it are much better now), but I'd be pretty cautious of the argument that we should do everything that we can get a plurality of the population to support.
I actually think a lot of the problems with total direct democracy come not purely from hot tempered reactions of the majority (though that certainly is a problem at times), but from the mere fact that a lot of governing decisions need to get made by someone who really studies the details of a problem closely and makes an informed decision.
Let's say as a society we're making a complicated financial decision (like, is it in our long-term financial interest to build a bridge linking Point A and Point B). That's a very complex decision, where it's extremely hard to pin down with specifics both the costs and the eventual benefits of the bridge.
So, as a society we put together a group that studies the issue in depth and puts together a 100-page report that's the distillation of their research. It nails down the costs and the benefits in about as concise a form as it can be, while still capturing the full complexity of the project.
Now here's the question: what's the process for deciding how to build the bridge? Do we:
- ask everyone in society to read and digest the 100 page report, make their own informed decision, and then vote on the outcome?
- Or do we as ask everyone to select the person they trust to read and digest the report, make an informed decision that would align with their interests, and then we vote for the person we want to make the decision?
I think there's some benefits to each approach that aren't captured by the other. In the former approach there's a lot of redundant work that we're asking from every member of society. It's much easier on each member of the democracy to make an informed decision about selecting a single person to make a decision on their behalf than it is to make an informed decision on the project directly.
Multiply this across every decision at the city, county, state, and federal government and suddenly the decision burden on the individual becomes a really good argument on its own for representative democracy!
You decide who represents you, directly (rather than pooling geographically, which is patently stupid) and representatives are operating with consistent incentive to act in the interest of their direct constituents.
Several times I have seen something complex where making an informed decision take at minimum several hours of research. Which most voters are obviously not going to do. Most people are at best following their parties lead, which asks the initiative pointless, or more likely making a knee jerk reaction without understanding the details.
Repealing laws on the other hand is something voters can have direct experience with.
Arguing that the limit for arsenic in drinking water should be lowered is very different than arguing the limit should be removed. The first needs a detailed analysis to judge, where the second comes down to more fundamental ideas.
Further, if the power is limited to removing legislation then similar rules can be added if it becomes obvious their needed.
"should not be infringed" gets to "can be regulated" which goes to "practically banned".
It’s a horrible way to make public policy because it is typically based on an oversimplified model of the world, can be worded vaguely/sloppily, often takes no design input from experts, is almost entirely unresponsive to real-world problems that arise afterwards, generally does not effectively empower lasting institutions to administer the policy and make sure it works as intended, and forces additional complexity, confusion, and legal ambiguity when the state legislature or local governments try to work around it with kludgy patches.
It's chaotic because people change their minds, quickly.
The propositions are presented in isolation without context. Somethings need to be considered holistically. Budgets are a classic example of this. There are trade offs. Any spending in one area means that those resources don’t go to other things. Should we fund cancer research? Yes. Firefighters? Yes. Why not both? Because we also need to fund schools, hospitals, roads, and the entire public sector. As a reasonably well educated and informed citizen it is not feasible to responsibly weigh in on a specific funding item. You would need to understand all the other aspects. As my grandfather (a third generation Californian) explained to me: if you aren’t 100% sure of what a proposition says vote No.
Direct democracy (initiatives) and neutered executive powers were the Progressives best efforts to counterbalance machine politics. It was worth trying.
We're clearly overdue for some more tweaking.
After binging on David Graeber's notions about participatory democracy, I've been wondering about replacing the meme of "elected representatives" with "delegated advocates", and what that might look like.
Maybe a bit like lawyers (barristers) representing clients.
Maybe a bit like merging the currently (nominally) separate roles of legislators and lobbyists.
Maybe a more clear division of responsibilities in bicameral governments, where the younger House advocates for changes and the older Senate tries to hold it all together. Like better rules for progressives battling conservatives.
I've sometimes pondered a system like this, but I never had a name for it. I will have to check David Graeber out.
https://democracynerd.us/episode/saving-democracy-in-oregon
https://democracynerd.us/episode/exporting-oregon-style-demo...
I haven't found any good resources for Anarchist flavored participatory democracy. Thus far, I've been collecting scattered bits and pieces. Am still looking for the people really thinking about the whole.
I doubt California has a higher percentage of gullibles, but it certainly has more people in total.
So if you want to be pedantic, they are laws made by unelected lawmakers.
Representatives who vote on laws are called law makers. If the people are voting on laws as well then they’re law makers as well aren’t they?
And you say they’re unelected? Well they don’t need to be elected, they’re citizens in their own right.
I think a key part of direct democracy is to make it as local as possible. It's my understanding that Switzerland has cantons averaging 350k people that have their own constitutions, taxes, schools, health care, even treaties with other countries. These are often further divided into municipalities. People might be able to vote on things several times a year. People can vote to cancel laws they don't like. Lots more info here [0]
California has almost 40 million people. That might be too big to qualify as "direct"
[0] https://wolf-linder.ch/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Swiss-poli...
I’d like a citation. Many other US states believe there was widespread voter fraud in 2020. Or that the vaccine implants a chip.
These believed lies seem like evidence of greater gullibility than belief that “consumer protection” laws protect consumers.
Extremes in both blue and red states are equally stupid. Average iq doesn't differ between states. Education level does, but as any techy knows, that's an overrated proxy for intelligence.
There actually is a check, and it is the higher requirement required for a Constitutional revision rather than a mere amendment.
For example, perhaps the people of towns/cities should be able to vote on things "closer to home" for themselves (like property taxes and zoning), leaving things involving multiple localities (like water rights) for the state.