What are the disadvantages of US direct democracy? (pc)
Representatives
1. Would voters ever support tax increases (even though its for broader interest)? Michigan Sales Tax Increase for Transportation Amendment, Proposal 1 (May 2015): a legislatively referred constitutional amendment that would increase the state's sales tax from 6% to 7% -Supporters argued it was necessary to increase funding for roads and schools (80% no, like many votes on taxes) Poses the question: are elected representatives sometimes better positioned to make decisions in the national interest than self-interested voters -Senate was elected by state legislatures - was kept purposefully immune from public opinion -SC Justices - appointed for life tenure rather than elected -President elected by electoral college rather than directly by the people
What is the 'tyranny of the minority'?
-Where the views of a minority of citizens are imposed on the majority -It can take a sizeable majority to elect an individual to office, but only a small minority to trigger a recall, or a referendum on a new statute
What problems can be caused by allowing the public to initiate their own state constitutional amendments?
Amending the US Constitution: Supermajority in both houses of congress to propose an amendment, the amendment must then be ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures or state ratifying conventions (was made difficult to bring a degree of stability to the system of government and to protect the rights and principals agreed upon at the time) Amending the Constitution of California: 1. 2/3 majority in state legislature or public - signatures equalling 8% of votes cast in last gubernatorial election (an election that often has quite low turnout) 2. Ratification: a majority vote in the ballot Us amended 27 times since 1789 California 480 times since 1879 If initiatives have unforseen consequences , state legislatures can always pass new laws to amend them But legislatures will have to work with any problematic constitutional amendments initiated by the public e.g. in California, initiated amendments have caused big budget problems 1978 California Proposition 13 - an initiative that amended the state constitution to limit property taxes to 1% of their value. Also required a 2/3 supermajority in the state legislature to raise general taxes It meant the legislature had to rely more on income and sales taxes which can vary significantly from year to year Funding for schools soon fell dramatically California Proposition 98 (1988) - an initiative that guaranteed an annual increase in education spending in the state budget California Proposition 117 (1990) - required the state to spend at least $30 million a year on wildlife protection Many critics of direct democracy argue that this has made it difficult for the state to draw up annual budgets to balance its deficit Study by the Initiative and Referendum Institution in 2003 found 1/3 of the budget for California was locked in
What evidence is there that initiatives and referendums can be harmful for minorities in the US today?
Can lead to controversial votes: 1. California Proposition 209 (1996) amended the state constitution to ban affirmative action programmes 2. California Proposition 8 (2008) amended the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage Both much to the opposition of easily outnumbered minorities Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO) (2015): 50,000 voters triggered a referendum on the HERO, a city law that banned discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity (the law was defeated 61% to 39%) Polls suggested that a majority of citizens were in favour of the law, but turnout was 27.4% meaning that only 16% of voters had been able to veto a law that representatives had felt was in the city's interest
Why do some argue that direct democracy increases the influence of the very elite it was supposed to challenge?
Despite the intentions of the progressive reformers, direct democracy can become dominated by special interests -Initiatives and referendums are arguably more elitist than pluralist 1. e.g. 365,880 signatures were needed for an initiative in California in 2016 Grassroots groups will need a huge number of volunteers to reach this number, but wealthy groups can hire private companies to collect the signatures. Even at $1 a signature, this is over $365,000 before the campaign, which itself is increasingly expensive 2. Advantage in the actual campaign: Washington Initiative 522 (2013) - asked if foods should be required to have labels that show if they contain genetically modified ingredients -Poll suggested the yes campaign had a considerable lead of 66% in September, but in the end the no campaign won by a slight margin (51.09%) -Many speculated that in a race this close, money was the decisive factor because while the yes campaign was supported largely by small organic farming groups (raised 8 million) no campaign raised 22 million (spent on huge advertising campaigns just prior to the vote) Challenges the argument that it educates people - if one group can afford to reach more voters, then voters are less likely to hear both sides of the argument and be less able to make a fully informed independent balanced decision This is made more difficult because there is a lack of transparency surrounding these donations: it would help many voters to know who is financing each campaign and why, learning about their motivations says a lot about the campaigns and donors are often keen to conceal this information in order to give the impression that campaigns have grassroots support 11 million was donated to the No Campaign by a trade group 'Grocery Manufacturers of America' Only revealed its donors after the state took legal action, and it was later revealed that businesses like PepsiCo, Nestle and Coca-Cola had each given the group millions to oppose this initiative while hoping to remain anonymous -Only $550 of the No campaign's 22 million came from individuals and businesses actually based in Washington - wealthy groups, who were not even able to vote had greatly contributed to this state initiative
Why are initiated statutes less flexible than statutes passed by state legislatures?
Direct democracy can be inflexible, with little room for compromise, it can turn complicated issues into binary yes or no decisions and undermine representative democracy -Normally bills go through a lengthy process before becoming state laws: 1. Debated and scrutinised and amendments (state legislature - minority and majority parties) 2. Checks and balances (bills pass in both chambers and require the Governor's signature) Initiatives are different: 1. The language of the bill is fixed and cannot be amended ( to make improvements or compromises that would win over more voters) 2. Few checks and balances: bill only has to pass the public vote
What is 'voter fatigue'?
It has been argued that the increasing number of initiatives, referendums and recall elections that take place in some states can lead to voter fatigue, where voters become increasingly apathetic as they're asked to decide more and more questions and vote in even more elections -The use of direct democracy has grown considerably in recent years (e.g. California had 62 initiatives in the 2000s, compared with 44 in the 1980s and 9 in the 1960s), as more interest groups have seen the opportunity to bypass legislatures and write their own legislation -While these factions might be keen on the process, low turnout levels suggest that many voters are not
How does low turnout impact initiatives, referendums and recalls?
Low turnout can give initiatives, referendums and recall elections a very questionable mandate -In 2012, the Colorado state legislature passed new gun control laws following a mass shooting at a cinema -Opposition groups began to collect signatures to recall some of the Democrats who had supported the law -State Senate President John Morse, and Senator Angela Giron, were both successfully recalled and replaced -Polls conducted prior to the 2013 recalls found a majority of voters (54%) did oppose the new gun control laws, but only 35% and 36% (Morse then Giron) thought the Senators should be recalled, 60% said they disagreed with recall elections -Despite these polls, both Senators were narrowly defeated in 2013 ( Morse 50.89%, Giron 55.85% yes) It seems that the people in the polls were either not motivated or interested or informed enough to vote. It's likely that some citizens weren't aware that Colorado was holding its first ever recall elections -Only 21% of the 84,029 registered voters in Senator Morse's district actually voted, meaning only 9131 citizens supported his recall A small number of voters were able to recall a popularly elected representative for supporting reforms than many citizens actually supported
Why did the Founding Fathers fear direct democracy? Why did they want to establish a 'republic' instead?
The Founding Fathers avoided direct democracy for fear that it would lead to a 'tyranny of the majority': it's easier for large groups, with a majority of votes, to dominate in a democracy This could threaten the rights and liberties of smaller, minority groups -No mention of 'democracy' in the constitution -Madison thought it was inevitable that factions would form: groups of citizens with interests that undermine the rights of others, or the wider national interest, and the problem of factions in a direct democracy is that there's very little to protect minority groups from the more popular majorities. So Madison felt direct democracy was incompatible with personal security or the rights of property Republic (avoiding the despotism of a monarchy or the extremes of direct democracy) Article 4, Section 4 says every state will have a republican form of government (they meant the US would be a representative democracy) - people would have power to elect their head of state (unlike monarchy) but not complete power to shape laws as in a direct democracy 1. Factions: self-interest 2. Representatives: national interest