WOULD it make sense for Student Council’s budget to be approved by a referendum of the entire student body? Would it make sense for Americans to vote on the national budget? No, because most voters know little or nothing of the process or of the money involved. Direct democracy sounds nice but often is disruptive or vindictive and should be removed as a law-making procedure in this country.
Popular referenda came about during the Progressive Era at the turn of the 20th century when it seemed like a beneficial way to give the average citizen more say in the government. Through this system, there have been plenty of intelligent ballot initiatives that sometimes resulted in new laws. However, it has become clear over the last few decades that special interest groups are employing the right to initiate ballot referenda to back their own agendas. This abuse of the referendum runs counter to the original intention of the initiative which was to combat the monopolizing power of the economic behemoths at the turn of the century like Standard Oil that often exerted control over legislatures nation-wide. One only has to look at the recent passage of Proposition 8 to see the ability of one group of people to get enough signatures to put forward a restrictive initiative on a hot-button issue that ends up limiting the rights of another group of people. Not only does this violate the spirit of the initiative’s progressive origins, which wanted to make government more true to Lincoln’s words “by the people, for the people,” but it also exhibits how direct democracy disturbs the continuity of our governing structure.
A representative form of government operates on a governing process in which the people elect individuals they think can effectively run the government; if they fail in this task the people elect others to take their place. Through ballot initiatives, the elected officials shirk their assigned duty by giving the direct power to the people. If all Americans had a knowledgeable understanding of the sometimes complicated processes of government or the issues at hand, then perhaps direct democracy would be an effective form of law-making. Yet few people pay attention in their civics classes in high school — we as a people have a woeful understanding of how our governments (national, state or local) operate. So why do we think it’s a good idea to hand the people the power to legislate directly? Would you ask someone who knew nothing about surgery to cut you open to remove a kidney? No, just as you shouldn’t ask the people of this country, most of whom haven’t watched Schoolhouse Rock’s “I’m Just a Bill” or are not knowledgeable about current events, to personally make decisions that could directly result in the creation of new laws.
There’s a long list of laws and attempted legislation that involved popular referenda. The famous Ludlow Amendment of the 1930s called for a national referendum over a declaration of war unless the United States was attacked first. Would anyone who was likely to go fight and possibly die in a conflict vote for it? Would their family members? California voters approved Proposition 13 in 1978 and limited property taxes to no more than one percent of property value, a move that has helped prevent the state from balancing a budget since the law was passed, leading to harmful budget cuts that affect millions of people. Self-interest drives most people and few want to pay taxes if they don’t have to, so it is no surprise that Californians voted in favor of lowering taxes. Direct democracy often creates bad public policy that causes headaches for those elected to govern and creates unforeseen negative consequences for the citizens themselves.
With the recent passage of Proposition 8 in California as well as amendments in Arizona and Florida to outlaw same-sex marriage in 2008, the newest angle direct democracy has is one of restricting the rights of others. Beyond gay marriage, a woman’s right to choose came under attack in Colorado and South Dakota; though both initiatives narrowly failed, the fact that a simple ballot proposition could undo the judgement of the Supreme Court on Roe v. Wade exhibits the way these initiatives hurt both people and our governing structure. Many thoughtful individuals, from Plato to Madison, have warned about allowing the tyranny of the majority to take hold and direct democracy perfectly illustrates how the majority can limit the rights of a minority group. In a nation where the term “freedom” is employed all the time to describe the American Way, does it make sense that there should be a method that can be abused to make laws that limit the rights of certain groups of citizens?
Direct democracy through ballot initiatives sounds great in theory, founded with the citizen’s truest interests at heart, but in practice this system has shown itself to be harmful and restrictive to both people and the governing process. The laws permitting ballot initiatives should be removed from the books and the elected officials should do their job: govern.
Geoff Skelley’s column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at g.skelley@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Celebrate the Contemplative Commons and other non-academic student spaces
By Editorial Board | 1 hours agoThe Contemplative Commons stands as a testament to the value of spaces that transcend commercial imperatives, fostering interdisciplinary engagement and experiential learning.
KURTZWEIL: What we lose in the name of efficiency
By Paul Kurtzweil | YesterdayPenicillin was discovered in a moldy petri dish — this government would have it thrown out because it was wasting space on the counter.
RASHID: U.Va. must empower faculty and students through transparency
By Muhammad Ali Rashid | YesterdayBy attempting to contain, or even eliminate uncomfortable narratives, the administration incrementally consolidates power and frays communal trust.
