They could, for instance, prevent for most of a century most prosecutions for lynching.
Of course there could be upper laws blocking them from making it an official stance, but it really feels like fighting a reality with theorical boundaries.
The issue is not the abuse of a system hack, and probably more around changing people's mind (which can take centuries and get reversed in a few years...)
We haven't even gotten to the "equal access to voting" part here in the States yet, so we have a long long road before we get to the "voting is a good tool for minorities to protect themselves" phase.
Those representatives have personal moral responsibility for the laws and decisions they make and are sovereign individuals in their own right, as is any citizen. There’s an argument (I think a strong one) that having been elected they have a right to make laws or rule according to their own beliefs and conscience, within the limits of the law. They’re not just the compliant meat puppets of “the people”.
Of course there are examples of direct democracy, in the form of referendums on specific issues, and these highlight many of the problems with direct democracy. You end up with votes raising spending, alongside votes cutting taxes, with a side order of votes banning government borrowing. You get situations like Switzerland voting to align with the EU along with its free movement provisions, then a referendum mandating ending free movement (but not any other aspects of the treaty), then a referendum confirming maintaining the EU treaty. Take Brexit, what does it mean? Hard Brexit, soft Brexit, there are infinite different possible variations. Which one did the British public intend? Well, different members of the public intended different things, who gets to choose? What happens when the public vote for one thing but most elected people in government responsible for implementing it think it’s a bad idea?
The problem is “the people” don’t have a single coherent group consciousness capable of reconciling competing priorities. That’s what leaders are for.
To be fair, Switzerland comes very close. The public can pass initiatives or constitutional amendments without government intervention through public votes, and the few Swiss people I know consider this to be the primary political system in Switzerland (not the representative electoral system they have, though they also have a very interesting mechanism for their President which requires cross-party agreement for any government decision).
Saying "no system fully implements direct democracy" feels like a no-true-scotsman stance, since by the same token no system fully implements representative democracy either (AFAIK no country guarantees that there is a precise percentage match of party representation to the popular vote with no lower bound on how many votes a party needs to enter, as it would be unworkable to have such a system).
> The problem is “the people” don’t have a single coherent group consciousness capable of reconciling competing priorities. That’s what leaders are for.
The flip side is that in representative democracies (especially with broken voting systems that are not even remotely representative such as in the US, UK, and most of the world) you are very limited in your choices of leader and thus sentiments which are popular with the public can be completely ignored. There is no mechanism to force a public initiative that has legal weight, so you have to hope that a major party will be in favour of your pet issue and they can convince other bureaucrats to support something that is popular.
I would not say that I'm a proponent of direct democracy but I don't think having some public initiative system would be a bad thing. But if we are going to keep representative democracies with the argument that the leaders represent the people but have some expertise (though cynical people would argue that is not the case anyway) then you cannot have broken electoral systems because their political power is no longer morally justified. But of course, no party that gets in power would likely ever change the entire electoral system since they have a strong political incentive to not do so (and with representative democracies, election promises aren't worth the paper they're written on).
Please don't lump the extremely broken US political system with the slightly less broken British and former colonies (Canada, Australia, NZ, etc.) and even less so with the rest of democratic countries around the world which is usually using representative systems. Furthermore, some countries have explicit constitutional schemes where a petition with enough signatures needs to be voted on in parliament or even called in as a referendum.
I live in Australia. Any system which uses winner-takes-all-electorates is structurally unrepresentative. The party list systems in Germany and New Zealand get closer but have other flaws (enshrining of party politics, no preferential voting) and so on. Even a hypothetical Condorcet system with only one house and no local electorates then has the flipped issue that there is no local accountability. A multi-seat preferential electoral system (which is what I'd advocate for) has a threshold issue where you have to decide at which point a particular percentage of the vote is too low to no longer deserve representation. Any system requires tradeoffs and as we all know from the Arrow Theorem (and the Alabama Paradox) there isn't even such a thing as a perfect voting system, so why would we expect to have a perfect electoral system?
My point was not that these are not acceptable systems (though some are better than others), just that if we're going to start talking about how no-true-scotsman perfect systems, it's not reasonable to ignore that the status quo also has a very similar (and in many cases wider) departure from the theoretical state it should be.
And as a non-American, I really dislike this tendency many non-American people have to say "at least it's not as bad in the States!" -- this just breeds complacency as everyone cares more about what's happening to the political system in a foreign country rather than their own. We should all be working to improve things wherever we are, instead of just pointing and laughing at the US.
Also it's not fair to lump New Zealand with Australia, nor Australia with Canada. They all have completely different electoral systems -- so much so that there's literally no reason to group them in any serious discussion.
We very much don’t. Public proposals have to go through multiple rounds of deliberation, cooling down, revision and supermajority popular approval before becoming law.
Is my understanding correct?
Yes, federal law has general supremacy.
I am saying it is as good as it is because it is not direct. The majority can propose an initiative, but the legislature gets to deliberate and draft a counter-proposal, with all of this taking time and encouraging sponsors to withdraw their initiative. In essence, it’s a way to prompt the legislature in a certain direction. Not for the majority to write the law. For an example of how that breaks, see California’s referendum process.
Of course some systems implement forms of direct democracies, although they are not represented in the UN because they are not taking part in the "game of thrones" of international politics. But saying that no Nation State implements direct democracy is right on point, because "democracy" is the very opposite (by definition, i.e. "power to the people") to the State ("power over the people").
In contrast, most States on Earth (even Kingdoms!) implement forms of representation/election. Now, can we even call that a democracy? Electoral systems as we know them today were designed in the 18th century by french and american politicians/philosophers who were strongly opposed to (and afraid of) democracy so that's a bit of a stretch.
I mean take a very simple issue: ask everyone "should some people be sleeping on the streets when there's millions of empty dwellings?" and they'll all say "no". Now see what the government is doing with this popular will, and you'll understand government don't care about the people and wipe their asses with our needs. Call me "cynical" if you will but i'm certain the people who uphold Nation State have no expertise, and certainly have material interests opposed to ours.
While I think that is also a very interesting topic and I'm sure we would agree on many things, I'm not sure it helps to get into the philosophical argument while talking about real-life political systems and the different flavours of representative democracies.
I don't think i am, sorry if it sounds like bikeshedding. I'm interested in the practical question of who holds political power, and who holds the "legitimate violence" to enforce this political power.
If me and my neighbors can't "legally" define our own sets of rules and regulations (which we can't in France), i just can't call that a democracy. Time and time again i've witnessed local communes get crushed by national/industrial interests... that's a very practical concern, not philosophical, whether you can keep your home and your life or they're going to destroy your entire village like they did around the Hambach charcoal mine (or like they tried in NDDL, or are still trying in Bure).
If you and your neighbours want to not be subject to the French government, you can always go somewhere else. The fact there’s probably nowhere better for you to go is hardly France’s problem.
There are many flavours of representative democracy. It depend what is being represented. In the British system that’s constituencies. In proportional systems, that’s political parties. Neither are particularly more or less inherently legitimate IMHO.
Ultimately whether a democracy and its system is legitimate rests on a consensus of the consent of the people to that system. I think would clearly ludicrous to argue that the British people do not consent to their system of government.
I would consider 10% of a country voting for a party as first preference but less than 0.7% of parliament seats (by which I mean a single seat) being allocated to them (as was the case in Australia until the last election where it's still around 2% representation) to be unrepresentative by any reasonable definition of the word. Whether you feel that the voting system in your country needs to be purely representative in order to be legitimate is a philosophical question and whether you feel that an unrepresentative system is legitimate is a separate discussion.
Whether you think parties should be entrenched or not (I'm not particularly fond of the idea), it is literally not representing the public votes. This is because Australia has winner-takes-all electorates and. You can have electorate systems that don't have one-seat electorates. Winner-takes-all electorates lead to this problem.
> I think would clearly ludicrous to argue that the British people do not consent to their system of government.
I would think it to be naive to argue that every election is a referendum on the fundamental system of government in the country where no party is running on such a platform and there are many factors making it essentially untenable to even attempt to have a third party push the issue.
I suspect few British people would say their government is illegitimate but I also suspect very few would say "I have a continuing and active choice in the fundamental way political power is structured in my country, above voting for individual political parties."
I don’t think it’s fair to phrase it that way, I’m terms of choice. Democracy doesn’t give individuals a choice in how they are governed, it grants them a vote. That’s not the same thing. Also I don’t think it’s reasonable to have the structure of political power up fir continuous change. There should be mechanisms fir change, sure, but in most cases that should be over fairly long time frames with plenty of brakes in the process.
The reason is that changing power structures is extremely dangerous. Once you fall into a peer structure that’s vulnerable to abuse by a clique or even worse an individual, you can easily get trapped in it permanently. In a constantly changing system up for frequent revision it seems like that would eventually be inevitable.
How would multi-seat electorates privilege parties over constituencies? It would literally mean more representation of different views in on electorate.
Is this is a consistent outcome or an anomaly?
Our upper house is far more representative because each state and territory has multiple seats and thus you can get a more representative outcome.
Representative democracy doesn’t require a “precise percentage match of party representation …”, but direct democracy is explicitly defined as a system in which there are no representatives.
> especially with broken voting systems that are not even remotely representative such as in the US, UK, and most of the world
This is hyperbole. The US system is pretty representative, and the extent to which it isn’t has very little to do with the voting system and much more to do with incentives (elected officials are beholden to their corporate backers rather than their constituents) and to a lesser extent, our two party system.
I'd be a supporter of freedom to decide any rule within a group if there was infinite resources and we'd just move freely to the places we want to be with the groups we want to belong to. Short of that, the majority agreeing on something is probably not enough to warrant changes, but then of course we have to deal with the imbalance...
Sort of. It’s tyranny of the majority [1].
The meaning of democracy has changed over millennia. Classically, democracy encompasses “freedom of assembly, association, property rights, freedom of religion and speech, inclusiveness and equality, citizenship, consent of the governed, voting rights, freedom from unwarranted governmental deprivation of the right to life and liberty, and minority rights” [2]. Each of these involves constraining majoritarianism. Unfortunately, in modern use, this balance has been lost, with the term democracy becoming more and more interchangeable with direct democracy, a system that predictably fails.
So classically, no, jury nullification of lynching is a failure of several fundamental democratic principles. But in a modern sense, yes, it’s the will of the majority of a certain set of people.
What you describe was an "age of enlightenment"-style idealised version of democracy that lived for a short time before it was being killed again, bit by bit.
And that direct democracy thing ... it works for the Swiss, and many would argue the problem today is not too much democracy, but too little, and it becoming ever-smaller.
> that direct democracy thing ... it works for the Swiss
We don’t have direct democracy. Our initiative and amendment processes have a referendum component, but it’s tightly moderated by the legislature and requires supermajorities to override it. And to the degree it's being discussed, it's with respect to reforming it so political parties can't bypass the parliament.
It traditionally only means "the electorate decides on topics directly, not with representatives who are not bound in their decisions to their mandate". Again, see Switzerland, which works just fine with direct democratic elections with groups ranging from a few hundred voters on a market square to millions of electors in the country as a whole.
There are practical and logistical problems of course, but there is no evidence of it actually failing. An educated population can decide to defer decisions and a majority probably would. At least the societies ready for it.
I think parliamentary democracy becomes more interchangeable with technocracies with certain groups carefully gate keeping for their in-group. This would fail at least as predictably.
It's also a jury looking at a fellow citizen getting hung out to dry by a crooked/ambitious DA and law enforcement entity, or shifty looking DEA agent and saying "Enough is enough. This is overreach, dirty, and wrong, and every last one of you knows it."
Nothing is a given about how our system works. Justice and politics are constantly evolving things. Each process serving as inputs to the others.
We try to create a world of predictable consequences. We try to minimize the number of places surprising things can pop up from. However, deep down, we bear forward the history of abuses by systems past, which is why we maintain these safety valves, even if they are infrequently used, lest our vigilance wane that they need to be used again.
It's why jury duty is the most important damn responsibility in the country.
The process as we imagine it simply can't work under these conditions. The people are too deranged, and like misbehaving children, need to be contained.
Some say this would not be a problem because unlike in an acquittal the judge can overturn a guilt verdict. That's not a convincing argument because much of what a jury does is decide which of believable but conflicting witness accounts to believe. The judge often has no way to distinguish between the jurors found the prosecution witnesses more believable (and so the judge should let the conviction stand) and the jurors found the defense witnesses more believable but decided to convict anyway because they didn't like something about the defendant such as their race, or bad things they did not relevant to the crime they are being tried for (and so the judge should acquit the defendant).
See George Stinney Jr. for an example.
You'd have to abolish double jeopardy if you wanted equivalence.
But maybe I'm an outlier like that. I guess also its rather conceited of me, but that's the way it is.
Voters who want someone in office who is not an expert at governing vote for someone who doesn't claim to be an expert.
In reality, it was people elected by male landowners.
Stopping the punishment of crimes is not halting all injustice.
Slavery was 100% enabled by the fact that escaping from slavery was a crime.
A jury can’t decide to make something a crime, they can only choose to not punish a crime.
The similarity here being that Congress sat on its hands regarding lynching for over a hundred years, followed by another 100 years of the Senate blocking everything the House brought up till just this year, long after everyone independently decided "hey, let's not lynch people". Its not supposed to be a defeatist approach, its just "hey lets focus on something that has consensus because trying this again is just a waste of energy". I'm interested in some aspects of fiscal and foreign policy, for example. That priority might not come from the same party.