Direct Democracy: a Good Alternative?

Direct Democracy: A Good Alternative?

Ruben Duran, Amanda Plisner and Shannon Price

PS 389 Semester Project

Prof. Allen Hicken

Due: April 16, 2003

Introduction

Democratic laws generally tend to promote the welfare of the

greatest possible numbers; for they emanate from the majority

of the citizens, who are subject to error, but who cannot have

an interest opposed to their own advantage[1].

It is this democratic ideal, to appropriately represent and sufficiently satisfy the greatest majority of the populous, that roots the age-old debate over the adoption of direct democracy in America. The system of direct democracy was originally opposed my the majority of the founding fathers on the premise that a representative system would more easily gauge and refine the opinions of the masses, while simultaneously promoting their accurate translation into laws and regulations. On a superficial level, it does seem that representative democracy would prove the most practical way for citizens to be actively involved in government and decision-making without spending endless hours in the voting booth. This is frequently countered, however, by the assertion that in order to entirely fulfill the Will of the People, the citizenry in its entirety must be allowed to vote on every issue. For this reason, the idea of returning decision-making to the hands of citizens in the form of direct democracy is yet to be abandoned. The processes of initiative and referendum* allow citizens in many states, most notably California, to vote directly on a variety of political and social issues that impact their lives. Although this seems to provide for an ideal system, one able to reach and satisfy the vast majority of constituents, it is important to consider the practicality and usefulness of such a system. Direct democracy does aide in representing the American people due to its tendency to include and propose issues important to constituents that would otherwise be overlooked by elected officials. Offering a viable alternative to representative democracy, the current system of national election, direct democracy aims to eliminate the dismay of citizens who feel their voices are no longer heard. It is important to consider, however, the system’s ability to further the democratic ideal of eliciting greater electoral participation, particularly in comparison to the system of representative democracy utilized by many states in the union.

History

To thoroughly understand the significance and usefulness of direct democracy, it is important to also understand its multi-century history and instances of its use throughout these years. The ideas for practices of direct democracy initially came about in the late 1800s as farmers and other groups-later collectively labeled Populists- became increasingly unsatisfied with the ability of monopolies and special interests to run their city and government. As strong believers in the power of the people, the Populists rebelled against the corporations and moneyed interests they believed had become too powerful. Angered by the failure of valued legislation to move through Congress, Populists heavily stressed the importance of direct democracy for their need and desires to be satisfied. Their unilateral belief was that direct democracy would allow the greater majority of the citizenry--those sharing their concerns regarding monopolies and special interests—to be more deeply involved in decision-making. Furthermore, the Populists believed that a decision-making body composed of a large proportion of the constituents would be more inclined to make decisions favoring a greater number of people, and would lack the corruption notorious of individual representatives and smaller representative bodies[2].

The Populists were ultimately not sufficiently powerful or unified, and therefore did not make significant headway in their efforts for direct democracy. They were successful, however, in paving the way for the Progressive movement which grew during the early 20th century. Comprised of a group of educated, liberal thinkers sharing the belief that the political party and corrupt party machines were overpowering the voice of the American people. The group’s most prominent ideal was that every citizen read, think, and vote for themselves. It was only when acting as individuals, that people were free of the “corrupting and self-interested influence of parties and machines”[3]. In essence, their view was that the only way to mend the current system of representative democracy was by making it more democratic. Unlike their Populist predecessors, members of the Progressive movement were successful in bringing about change in the form of direct democracy. Twenty-two of the twenty-six states that have presently adopted systems of direct democracy allowing for initiatives[4] on their ballots, had done so by 1920[5].

Definitions:

The initiative is the bedrock of a direct democracy. Granting the public the right to decide their legislation is fundamental in promoting the Will of the People. The process begins with the drafting of the initiative. The sponsors of the initiative must draft a text that is both comprehensive and legal, if they wish for it to pass both on Election Day, and before the court. This detracts largely from the idealistic view that any citizen can initiate laws; on the contrary, the process of writing, initiating and passing legislations requires a high degree of legal expertise. With the bill written to pass legal muster, now it must qualify for the ballot.

The next stage of an initiative requires formation of a Campaign Committee to sponsor the proposed bill. This group provides oversight for the campaign, and acts as an intermediary between the sponsors and the Administration. The sponsors begin by collecting petition signatures from registered voters, the requisite number varying by state or district. California statute requires signatures equal to 5% of qualified votes cast in the last gubernatorial election. The time limit for collection of these signatures is rigid: petitioning must be completed 150 days after registering with the Administration, and within 131 days of the election.[6] If these steps are completed, the initiative is placed on the ballot for consideration at the next election, and campaigning can begin.

Promotion for an initiative could be considered the most arduous and important stages in the process. Without public knowledge and agreement on the issue, voters might not be motivated to turn out, make an uninformed (and contrary) decision, or vote against the initiative in favor of the status quo. Therefore, promotion (or, campaigning) relies heavily upon several specific factors, outlined by Gerber, et al:

The extent of underlying public support (i.e., whether the campaign seeks to mobilize existing support rather than to change people’s opinions),
The resources of the opposition (i.e., whether the campaign is competitive or noncompetitive), and
The campaign’s purpose (i.e., whether it is intended to pass or defeat an initiative proposition).[7]

Much of public support relies upon positive promotion of ideas; that is, the more information the voter has, the more likely he or she would be to vote for an initiative. This, of course, requires media exposure, which in turn requires large amounts of funding. At the promotion, or campaign, stage of an initiative, the coffers of the sponsors begin to fill. Because of the need for large amounts of promotion, moneyed interests with extreme views are often the promoters of these initiatives.[8] This problem is created through the very nature of politics; in seeking to retain public office, politicians avoid controversial issues, in order to pander to the median voter. As such, those issues pertinent to the extreme, or otherwise politically unpopular will rarely be satisfied. These issues, then, may only be presented for popular review by way of the initiative. Because these issues are largely avoided, sponsors must provide a larger amount of relevant information. It has been shown that voters are less likely to vote in favor of an initiative if they are unfamiliar with the content of the proposed bill. As such, it is in the best interest of the sponsors and detractors to educate the public on the issues pertinent to the bill. Even with large amounts of promotion funding, though, the ultimate test of an initiative campaign comes on Election Day.

Success/Failure of Initiatives

The complexity and expense of the initiative process would suggest that, by and large, they are successful ventures; after all, sponsors and financiers would want a positive return or outcome on their investment. This, however, is not the case for the state of California. As shown in Table 1, the success rate for initiative campaigns in that state is surprisingly low.

Table 1[9]

Initiative Success Rate for the State of California, 1924-1984

As is clearly shown by this pictorial, most initiatives fail at the voting booth. Even with a low overall success rate for these initiatives, Californians have clearly indicated those issues about which they are most passionate. Civil Liberties, Education, Public Safety and Business Regulation top the list of importance for these voters. However, when juxtaposed with each other, initiatives regarding different types of policies tend to be, numerically, more successful. These include: Health and Welfare, Natural Resources and the Environment, Public Morality and Tax Issues. In their study using the National Election Study’s data for 1996, 1998 and 2000, Tolbert, et al. found the following:

…while ballot initiatives may not ordinarily contribute to a more informed electorate, when they are closely connected to the campaign issues of state and national candidates, the initiative process can increase the general political knowledge of the electorate.[10]

One could speculate that these issues are important precisely due to their direct impact on living standards. That is, people are concerned most with their income and family health and security. Additionally, policy surrounding these issues tends to be more controversial for politicians to take on.[11]

As important as these controversial issues may seem, they continuously fail to produce legislation. With only a 31% overall success rate, one can draw several broad conclusions: voters are actively opposed to most initiatives; voters are uneducated about the issues presented, and therefore don’t vote or vote against; or voters are simply uninspired to turn out.[12]

Turnout:

Participation in California elections has, historically, been very low. Even during Presidential and gubernatorial cycles, voter turnout rate since 1974 has shrunk, even with increases in eligible voting population each year.[13]

Out of the more than 20.8 million California citizen eligible adults, just 8,617,649 voted in the November general election, a participation rate of just 41%.

This shows that, in the 1998 election, the people of California turned out in numbers far fewer than half. Thus, the outcome of this election was determined by a very small plurality (possibly less than 20%) of the entire electorate. Instead of showing the Will of the People, this demonstrated the Will of Those Who Showed Up.

When polled, 86% of 10,000 registered California voters believed that Initiatives would allow the public to decide issues where public officials would hesitate. Additionally, 71% of the same group believed people would participate more frequently if given a choice to vote on issues, and 66% believe citizens should be able to vote on important issues, instead of their representatives. Clearly, Californians say one thing and do another.[14]

Some scholars suggest that initiative campaigns can actually increase low voter turnout, thus forming a solution to the problem of participation. As outlined by Tolbert et al., states allowing initiative campaigns have residents more likely to turn out, especially in mid-term elections.[15] This is an optimistic, and favorable outlook, but empirical information already presented seems to disprove this notion for the state of California.

Education and Informed Voters:

Voters who are informed about issues, or have obtained higher levels of education, are much more likely to actively and strategically participate.

“…we can say that those who do participate are citizens who exercise more reason in their decision to vote yes or no on measures put before them.”[16]

Therefore, Cronin speculates that voters who participate in elections involving ballot initiatives are much more likely to be educated in general, and hence responsible voters. This makes them far less representative of the median voter and the population as a whole.

Conclusion:

Initial analysis indicates that while there have been many initiative attempts, few have seen the ballot and even fewer have been enacted. While California is the leader in petition proposals among states with direct democracy, the outcome for these is not proportional. We believe that, while direct democracy is an idealistic approach to democracy, and does provide an outlet of expression for personal opinion, it is not realistic based on voters’ minimal participation, apparent lack of information, and demonstration of relative indifference. Thus, even when initiatives are passed, they are not necessarily representative of the population, making it an unsuccessful attempt at achieving a more democratic method of election. In theory, it seems that the system of direct democracy would be beneficial to most making it a general success, however, in theory it seems that just the opposite is the case.

Direct democracy prohibits corporate interests and political machines from dominating legislators. Because it is the citizenry that would be voting on the particular issues, these corrupting groups would have little or no motivation to influence the decision-making process of individual representatives. Under the system of representative democracy, representatives are frequently faced with deal-making and log-rolling opportunities. These compromises are damaging to the representative nature of such a democracy, as they give representatives motivation to act on items other than their constituents’ desires. By keeping the representative biases induced by corporate interests and machines out of the legislature, the obstructions to genuine representative democracy that they produce would also be eliminated. This was the principal ideal of the Progressive Movement, however in practice it does not hold. Although the interests and machines would not benefit from directly attacking elected representatives, they would be tremendously advantaged by their overwhelmingly imbalanced ability to get initiatives on the ballot. The same qualities that give interests and machines power with respect to their influence on representatives-primarily cohesiveness and financial backing-also give them the ability to more easily and successfully get initiatives on the ballot. It is apparent that for an initiative to be successful, there needs to be considerable information regarding it available to the public, usually affiliated with an initiative campaign. The larger and more strongly supported a campaign is, the more likely the initiative is to pass, giving powerful interests and machines a clear advantage in voting outcomes.

Also significant, is the consideration of voters and their impact on the success of a particular system of voting. It is exploration of this concept that uncovers the short comings of the direct democracy system in practice. Overall, the public has largely incomplete information regarding the issues they are voting on. This is the case in representative elections as well as those which include initiatives on the ballots. Even those voters who have been privy to compete information and are well educated about the issues on which they are voting, are frequently influenced by interest groups and media advertisements. As voters become increasingly influenced by outside sources, and therefore more likely to exercise strategic voting, their genuine voting preferences are also disguised. In the case of the simply uneducated and unaware voter, they will not necessarily vote in a way that is beneficial to themselves or to the constituency as a whole. It is possible that the problem of uneducated voters could be diminished by direct democracy, as it may encourage voters to participate more fully and become more well educated on the issues that they now have the ability to vote for directly. As people become more educated, they are less likely to vote strategically, a problem frequently sited with regard to representative democracy. Unfortunately, however, it does seem that those encouraged by direct democracy to become better educated represent a small proportion of the population, allowing the desires and influence of those biased by interest groups and advertising to prevail.

Both disinterest and lack of educated voters can contribute to minimal voter turnout. Consequently, few initiatives make the ballot, and those that do, do so because they have the support of the legislature. This entirely undermines the purpose of direct democracy by requiring there to be legislative support for an initiative before the people can offer theirs.

[1] DeTocqueville, Alexis. Democracy in America. New York: Penguin Group; 1956, p100.

[2] Cronan, Thomas E. Direct Democracy: The Politics of Initiative, Referendum, and Recall.