Would you support the implementation of a legal mechanism whereby...

...the U.S. citizenry can, as a collective, invoke the right to take direct control of legislative matters/issues when they feel their Congress has failed them?

Yes, this same poll was conducted recently (5-9-07) and I've never run the same poll twice, much less in such a short time interval, but given the events of the last few days, I would really like to see if the DU community chooses to revisit this question in a different light or not.

Previous poll:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3257428

----------------------------------------------------

The People's Crusade of Mike Gravel

http://www.counterpunch.org/nader05082007.html

--SNIP--

For over a decade, given the failures of elected politicians, Mike Gravel has been engaged in some extraordinary research and consultations with leading constitutional law experts about the need to enact another check to the faltering checks and balances--namely, the National Initiative for Democracy, a proposed law that empowers the people as lawmakers.

Before you roll your eyes over what you feel is an unworkable utopian scheme, go to http://nationalinitiative.us to read the detailed constitutional justification for the sovereign right of the people to directly alter their government and make laws.

Among other legal scholars, Yale Law School Professor, Akhil Reed Amar and legal author, Alan Hirsch, have argued that the Constitution recognizes the inalienable right of the American people to amend the Constitution directly through majority vote. What the Constitution does not do is spell out the procedures for such a sovereign right.

The right of the People to alter their government flows from the Declaration of Independence, the declared views of the founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution, its Preamble ("We the People of the United States.do ordain and establish this Constitution,"), Article VII and other provisions, including the Ninth and Tenth Amendments...

My immediate thought is "you have such a process; it happens every two years; it's called an election".

A concrete proposal that fits roughly what I think is being asked is

"Would you support a law/constitutional ammendment (I think in the US it would need to be the latter) that would enable any petition that attracted enough signatures to automatically go to a referendum, and to become federal law if it passed"?

To which my answer would be "no, I would not; I think that such a proposal would lead to situations like simultaneous petitions for tax cuts and spending rises passing, or a vote to declare war on a nation and another one a week later to undeclare it".

I think representative democracy is a better system than direct democracy.

...representative democracy? Do you feel well represented?

With regards to the UK, I would answer "yes" (with a quibble that the House of Lords clearly isn't) and "no", respectively , but that's because my views are not representative of those of the populace at large - I don't think I *should* be terribly well represented.

With regards to the US, my answers would be similar, with the exception that I don't think that your Senate is terribly Democratic - power should be allocated per head, not per state - and that you're suffering from time lag in terms of representation - your government more accurately reflects the makeup of the electorate 3 or 5 years ago than it does at present.

The group to blame for the mess in Iraq is not the Senate or the Congress, it's the electorate, too many of whom voted for pro-war candidates.

...I should've taken a look at your profile.

I believe the UK comes much closer to being a representative democracy than the US.

We have corporate lobby/special interest groups in Washington that own and run the place -- big oil, big pharma, big insurance, AIPAC, etc. Ultimately, however, the blame/responsibility for Iraq, and all else our government does, rightly traces to the electorate/people. It is OUR responsibility, collectively, to impose our will on government, if we fail to do so, for whatever reasons, we must accept the consequences as well as the blame.

Our corporate owned mainstream media is the most powerful tool in the PNAC driven Neocon's arsenal. If we, the citizenry, ever figure a way to wrest control of that away from them, we could turn things in the US -- we could wake people up. Easy to talk about, hard to do.

Rule by plebiscite is a mug's game, particularly for the left in this country.

The idea the people have the right under the Constitution to amend it by simple majority vote is hog-wash. No such right exists, unless it were to be seized by arms, which some scholars seem to forget is the root of the Declaration of Independence....

...I'm not a legal scholar, but it would seem a constitutional amendment would surely be required. However, if you're suggesting that violent overthrow is the only way direct citizen voting on important legislative matters could be brought about, I would disagree.

Does direct control over legislative matters by the people frighten you for some reason?

The objections I encountered on the first poll (5-7-07) seemed to be rooted in fear that the citizenry would decide wrongly on issues such as gay rights and abortion. I wonder, does this mean these objectors would embrace direct democracy on important legislation if the citizen voting majority could be trusted to decide these issues the way the objectors like? Would that change things? The potential for bad legislation is NOT a compelling argument for rejecting citizen direct control. Our House of Corporate Puppets produces almost nothing BUT bad legislation and routinely neglects matters that are of immense urgency and importance.

Do you think President Bush would have received his 100 billion to continue this illegal occupation, with no mandatory timetable for withdrawal if this had been decided by national referendum? Would we even still be in Iraq? How 'bout nationalized health care? National polling has shown that U.S. citizens favor/want it. Other industrialized nations have it. Why not us? Are the people's interests being served on this important issue?

Of the people, by the people, for the people -- what do these words mean to you?

If, not just the principles, but the actual implementation/practice of representative democracy in this country can somehow be reestablished and made to actually work (serve the people), then GREAT -- I'm all for it. But the longstanding, well entrenched Corporatocracy we now have only feeds off and exploits ordinary citizens, and shows no signs of changing for anything but the worse. Somehow, the people's control over government must be restored. How are we to do this?

You could probably have run through rounding up every Moslem in the country in the closing months of 2001 by plebescite. At this particular moment, a plebiscite on a withdrawl timetable from Iraq probably would carry; so too, probably, would one mandating forcible and immediate deportation of illegal aliens numbering some twelve millions. The thing is a double-edged sword, and so to my view it is best left sheathed.

My comment about a right that could only be seized by arms refered specifically to the idea that the Constitution could be altered by a simple majority vote, and that this was somehow a right the people of our country have. That 'right' exists only in the sense that there is always a right to attempt revolution, though of course, no right to the attempt's succeeding.

...selected important legislative matters with some kind of irrational, knee-jerk, mass, mob rule. This could not be further from the truth.

Take a country like Switzerland for example:

From Wiki's treatment of "Referendum" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum

Switzerland

In Switzerland, there are binding referendums at federal, cantonal and municipal level. They are a central feature of Swiss political life. There are two types of referendums:

* Facultative referendum: Any federal law, certain other federal resolutions, and international treaties that are either perpetual and irredeemable, joinings of an international organization, or that change Swiss law may be subject to a facultative referendum if at least 50,000 people or eight cantons have petitioned to do so within 100 days. In cantons and municipalities, the required number of people is smaller, and there may be additional causes for a faculatative referendum, e.g., expenditures that exceed a certain amount of money. The facultative referendum is the most usual type of referendum, and it is mostly carried out by political parties or by interest groups.
* Obligatory referendum: There must be a referendum on any amendments to the constitution and on any joining of a multinational community or organization for collective security. In many municipalities, expenditures that exceed a certain amount of money also are subject to the obligatory referendum. Constitutional amendments are either proposed by the parliament or the cantons, or they may be proposed by citizens' initiatives, which—on the federal level—need to collect 100,000 valid signatures within 18 months, and must not contradict international laws or treaties. Often, parliament elaborates a counter-proposal to an initiative, leading to a multiple-choice referendum. Very few such initiatives pass the vote, but more often, the parliamentary counter proposal is approved.

The possibility of facultative referendums forces the parliament to search for a compromise between the major interest groups. In many cases, the mere threat of a facultative referendum or of an initiative is enough to make the parliament adjust a law. The referendums slow politics down.

The votes on referendums are always held on a Sunday, typically three or four times a year, and in most cases, the votes concern several referendums at the same time, often at different political levels (federal, cantonal, municipal). Elections are as well often combined with referendums. However, the percentage of voters is generally very low, about 20 to 30 percent unless there is an election. The decisions made in referendums tend to be conservative. Citizens' initiatives are usually not passed. Even referendums on tax cuts are often not passed. The federal rule and referendums have been used in Switzerland since 1848.

The Swiss make it work. Is that because they're just smarter than we are? Switzerland's citizenry is rationale, where ours is not?

I'll say it again, the potential for bad legislation (which could always be reversed/amended later) is NOT a compelling argument for rejecting direct citizen control.

The strong likelihood of irrational and ill-considered decisions strikes me, as it did the people who set up this Republic, as an excellent argument against the measure you propose. As the engineers say: "People are the problem." Being a people myself gives me some degree of insight into the sort of problem we pose....

...someone who embraces democratic principles at all.

Of the people, by the people, for the people -- again I ask, what do these words mean to you?

That people ought not to have their affairs ordered by autocrats and tyrants, and had best be free to manage them themselves, does not include belief that in doing so they will, as a amss, act wisely and well, in even a majority of instances: indeed, to maintain that requires ignoring a great deal of evidence to the contray....

"Democracy is the art of managing the circus from a cage in the monkey house."

"Democracy is a system of government based on belief the people know what they want and deserve to get it, good and hard."

...mistakes made and the occasion of bad legislation getting passed -- we get bad legislation all the time from House of Corporate Puppets. At least legislative decisions would be driven by the will of the people -- a very far cry from what we've got now.

The amounts that would be spent to sway the hundred million or so elegible to vote, the artful distortions and half-truths, emotional appeals, appeals to ignorance.

What on earth makes you suppose campaigns of national plebescite would be any different from campaigns of national election in their character and outcome?

Look at how statewide ballot initiatives work, in practice, already, particularly in large states like California. It is not an edifying spectacle, and certainly not one to dignify with the 'will of the people' sobriquet.

...the antithesis of true democracy. It is to suggest that important matters cannot be entrusted to the collective judgment of the citizenry and they must therefore be cut out, for they are simply too gullible, too naive.

Again, direct democracy (referendum) works in Switzerland -- why not here? Do they not have political advertising campaigns in Switzerland? Are Swiss citizens immune to being duped by con artists who buy advertising time? The Swiss are smart and can make this work, but we're too dumb?

Is rooted in recognizing the actual state of things; you may call that elitsim if you wish, for all the good it will do you....

"Anyone who considers political equality and human equality identical has never thought for six consecutive minutes about either."

...and you're right, it most certainly does describe "the actual state of things" in U.S. politics -- corporate elitism rules inside the Beltway.

Provides a pleasant comedic interlude to my usually gloomy insomnia.

The larger the crowd, the easier it is to manipulate and stampede: dictators love plebescites, and have very frequently employed them. the elite you decry would have a field day with what you propose, were it ever put into place.

The largest of my mental files is marked 'Great idea; no way in Hell you could make it work....'

What of it?

The real problem here is that you seem to think national plebescites pitched to a hundred millions would be of a different character than our present national electoral campaigns, pitched to the same hundred millions. You offer absolutely no reason for this belief, and there is in fact no reason whatever to believe it would be the case.

...We have a lengthy track record with so called representative democracy, and where has that brought us? We've de-evolved into a Corporatocracy headed towards totalitarianism.

What I think is that direct democracy would put control back in the hands of the people -- WHERE IT BELONGS.

Switzerland is a working, modern day, model for us to study and learn from, that's what of it.

Of the people, by the people, for the people -- I think I know what these words mean to you now. NOTHING.

"I'm going home. Someone get me some frogs and some bourbon."

...are awesome.

:thumbsup:

but when I am sick, I want one of those elite medical people (AKA "doctors") to help me. When my pipes bust, I call one of those plumbing elitists. And when it comes to laws and govt policy, I'd like it decided by people who wake up in the morning and read the news, and not by people who spend their time reading the sports page.

That's not to say elitism can not lead to abuse. But so can drugs. Opiates can be abused and ruin people's lives, but used responsibly, they significantly reduce, or even eliminate, a great amount of suffering

and btw, complaining about the elites is a bit wingnut

... as opposed to someone who is not qualified when your pipes bust, it naturally follows that where public policy and important legislative matters are concerned you rely on the great Corporatocracy? Because the people are simply not qualified? What qualifications does one need to express their desire to have nationalized health care? Or more money put into public education? Or better roads? Or a meaningful reduction in the military budget? Or legalization of gay marriage? Or a withdrawal of our troops from the Middle East?

In a democracy, whether its referendum based, representative or some combination) the people have say about these matters. Either you believe in that system or you don't. It sounds like you don't.

how many voters would read and understand an entire bill on a complex subject? How many understand the terms used in legislation? How many understand the legislation that is being altered or amended? Damn few.

but most of the people I meet don't know how a bill gets passed, nevermind the questions you just asked. I wouldn't trust them to write any legislation

And I'm tickled by the idea that is we were given the right to national referendums, that these referedums would be initiated, organized, and passed as the result of "grass roots activism", when the truth is the process would be as corrupt and corporate as everything else in politics. I guess some people have forgotten about the "grass roots recall" of CA's Governor.

...which employs national referendum involves ordinary citizens sitting down and pouring over the details of complex legislation? It doesn't.

National referendum let's people, by majority, make choices, such as whether to have nationalized or privatized health care, or whether to allocate funds for a particular project. There are many general questions of public policy like this that the people are routinely cut out of, and that end up being decided by Congress members who serve corporate interests rather than the people's.

How do you propose we fix this?

we have a system in place to elect representatives every two years, Presidents every four years, and Senators every six years. I believe it is a good system, and one that has served us very well for a long time.

And PLEASE stop bringing up Switzerland - it's an entirely irrelevent comparison.

...Our system's working just swell? Nothing to see here, move along folks, everything's just fine?

Your plea not to cite Switzerland as an example of referendum made to work sounds very much like the Neocon's cry to stop talking about stolen elections -- they can't defend the use of machines with no independent redundancy checks, verifiable audit trail, or physical ballots, nor can they explain a disparity between exit polls and actual results that we never used to see showing up only in swing states that happen to be using the touch screen machines -- so it's just, 'shut up about stolen elections', or in your case "...stop bringing up Switzerland."

The introduction of using national referendum on some policy questions would not amount to the wholesale displacement/dismantling of our representative system, and to suggest otherwise is very misleading? It is in effect, to play the fear card -- just as the Neocons do.

you refuse to read anything I write. I'm done with this nonsensical discussion.

Corporatocracy. Switzerland. Tiresome.

And monkeyfunk said it without once using any form of the word corporate (ex corporatocracy, corporatism, etc). She is a freekin genius the way she communicates things she never said

agreeing with Madison, Jefferson, et. al. makes me a neo-con :eyes:

just shoot me now

American Oligarchy. It has concealed the motivations and results for its actions from the people.

This is the system that has brought us slavery, the Civil War, domestic genocide, the illusion of private property, wars the world over, banana republics, revolution and strife throughout the world, corruption, disintegration and devaluation of education, war on drugs, environmental destruction, about a thousand examples of massive governmental corruption, at least four world-wide economic collapses, the federal reserve usury system, rampant inflation, stifled innumerable innovations, halted the advance of scientific and social advances, the repression and imprisonment of every "class" and "type" of person that exists, institutional bigotry including, racism and sexism, sanctioning discrimination of every sort, militarism, imperialism, a 60 year-long cold war, "hot" wars every two decades with clockwork regularity, robber barons, enforced class privilege through military intervention, enforced economic repression of entire nations, supported totalitarian regimes of all stripes, and hundreds of additional outrages I can't think of right this minute.

But it's a good system? One so perfect there is no need to even consider alternatives?

I've even considered national referendums. That was soon followed by me rejecting national referendums, for the reasons expressed here: Elitism isn't always a bad thing.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

2. consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group.

Sorry, but you're just plain wrong. Elitism is always bad unless you're one of them. If you're deluded enough to believe that "someday I will be one of them", you are in for a rude awakening.

specifically, a democratically elected meritocratic elite. I beleive the decisions should be made by people who know the subject matter. I am frequently disappointed in this desire.

to "of the people" and inevitably eliminates "for the people", while eventually ignoring "by the people".

I'm not sure whether you believe that the elite are better than you, or if you believe you are better than the people, either way you are wrong.

there is nothing undemocratic about a democratically elected meritocracy. It is exactly what a good many of the Framers envisioned.

the point at all.

A discussion requires the acknowledgment of what is written. You want to discuss, that's why I'm here, you want to continually repeat your initial statement, have fun. It's all good to me.:shrug:

Your point that my opinions are undemocratic are based on nothing more than your say so. I re-read your post and see no argument coming from you. All I saw was you declaring me (and not just my opinion) undemocratic. I saw nothing to support your claim other than the claim itself.

So what's to "discuss"? You think my preference for a democratically elected meritocracy is undemocratic, and I do not. If you were to explain how a democratically elected is undemocratic, then we would have something to discuss. Unfortunately, you have not done that. All you have done is to make the claim.

I stated that that is antithetical to the very concept of our nation, rule by the elite is exactly what they fought the revolution to free us from. Just reading the Declaration of Independence should be sufficient to convince you of that, but if not, try Common Sense or any number of other's writings of the time.

You then proceeded to pronounce that we have an elected meritocracy, also fallacious. There is no requirement of merit, nor accomplishment to be elected and, in fact the majority of our elected officials have nothing to qualify them for office other than a privileged background and the connections to raise huge piles of cash for their campaigns. We cannot have a meritocracy without merit.

Further, I never said that your notion was undemocratic, but that your position that we have a meritocracy was wrong. The founders of this nation considered a pure democracy and, viewing it is little more than mob rule, rejected it, choosing instead a representative republic, not one mention of meritocracy in any of the founding documents.

If we had a meritocracy, our leaders would be the Chomsky's and Pinter's and Mandela's, not the craven whores and hacks that inhabit our halls of power.

"You started by saying that you advocate a system of rule by the elite."

No, I merely failed to condemn every form of elitism. Remember, the VERY FIRST POST I made said something like "You talk of elites as if they were always a bad thing". I did not advocate that we should be subjected to "rule by elite". I also made specific reference to a "democratically elected" elite as well as a "meritocratic" elite.

"I stated that that is antithetical to the very concept of our nation, rule by the elite is exactly what they fought the revolution to free us from. Just reading the Declaration of Independence should be sufficient to convince you of that, but if not, try Common Sense or any number of other's writings of the time."

Yes, I remember that. But your stating that doesn't make it true, nor does it transform your "claim" into an "argument". And claiming that the DOI, or any other historical text, supports your claim is also nothing more than a "claim". If you were to make some specific reference to something in one of those texts, and explained how that reference sding govt supported your claim, THEN you would have made an argument.

So if you claim my opinion is undemocratic, I will match your claim with a claim of my own: "No, my opinion is not undemocratic" And if you respond with another claim (ie "The DOI supports my claim") I will match that claim with another claim of my own (ie "No, the DOI does no support your claim")

Now, if instead of making claims, you prefer to debate and discuss the issue, you will have to offer an argument. Please explain how these historical documents support your claims. And in the spirit of fair play, I will offer you an argument that supports my claim

It's quite obvious that the Framers did NOT intend for every citizen to have a voice in making decisions concerning govt policy and actions. All one needs to do to make this obvious is to note that the constitution they wrote deliberately and intentional denied wide swaths of the population the right to vote (and in some instances, any rights at all), an rather odd position for a group of anti-elitists to take.

Another indication of The Framers sympathy for elites is their jaundiced view of mobs. In the Federalist Papers, both Madison and Hamilton voice a concern about the dangers of mob rule.

When they formed two seperate legislative bodies (The House and the Senate) they deliberately designed the Senate in way that it would act as an obstacle in passing legislation whose support depended on the passions of the day.

Furthermore, the very structure of our government, one that relies on "representatives" who are chosen by the fellow citizens as the most qualified, suggests a willingness to allow a small group of people to make the decisions for a much greater number of citizens.

Elitism lies at the very heart of all governments, democratic or not. Elitism is about a group of persons exercising the major share of authority or influence within a larger group - a very good description of our elected representatives.

"You then proceeded to pronounce that we have an elected meritocracy, also fallacious. There is no requirement of merit, nor accomplishment to be elected and, in fact the majority of our elected officials have nothing to qualify them for office other than a privileged background and the connections to raise huge piles of cash for their campaigns. We cannot have a meritocracy without merit."

Yes, we do have an elected meritocracy, not because it's a legal requirement, but because people vote based on their perception of merit. There is no requirement for any specific accomplishment because in the US, people are free to decide for themselves what is meritorious and what is not. If you want to believe (and vote based on) the idea that a belief in religion is meritorious, you may consider it when voting.

You are free to hold the opinion that "priviliged backgrounds" and "huge piles of cash" are not indicators of merit, but others are free to choose otherwise. In a meritocracy, what is and what isn't "merit" does not need to be clearly defined.

"Further, I never said that your notion was undemocratic, but that your position that we have a meritocracy was wrong. The founders of this nation considered a pure democracy and, viewing it is little more than mob rule, rejected it, choosing instead a representative republic,

In that case, I apologize for misunderstanding that point, and I'll try to address better now. Basically, an elite is a group of people, somehow chosen from a larger group, who exercise a greater amount of authority and/or status, etc than the larger group from which they came. This description of an elite applies to Congressmembers. They are a group of people. They were chosen from the larger group known as "US Citizens". And they do exercise a greater amount of authority and status, etc

I'm can't be sure, but I think you may be confusing an "elite" with an "aristocracy". An aristocracy is an elite, but it is not a meritocratic one. Instead, it's usually an elite based on wealth, power, and/or family. The Framers opposed an aristocracy, but they did not oppose meritocratic elites. They valued them.

not one mention of meritocracy in any of the founding documents.

ISTR that meritocratic elites were mentioned in the Federalist Papers, but I'll try to check that out. I do know that some of the Framers did discuss elites in a favorable manner. I'll see if I can dig up a reference.

If we had a meritocracy, our leaders would be the Chomsky's and Pinter's and Mandela's, not the craven whores and hacks that inhabit our halls of power.

I'd rephrase that. I'd say "If greyhound1966 decided what was merit and what was not, THEN our leaders would be the Chomsky's and Pinter's and Mandela's, not the craven whores and hacks that inhabit our halls of power."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/interviews/lemann.html

Can you talk a bit about Thomas Jefferson?

Thomas Jefferson, after having retired as President, struck up a correspondence with John Adams who was, of course, also a retired President. Jefferson is in Virginia, Adams is in Massachusetts. And they wrote these really remarkable long letters to each other--very scholarly. Parts of them are in Greek; parts of them are in Latin. You can't imagine ex-Presidents writing this stuff today. Anyway, there's a famous letter, written from Jefferson to Adams in 1813, and Jefferson says "I propose to you that there is a natural aristocracy among men, made up of people who have virtues and talents." And then he contrasted it to what he called a "tinsel aristocracy," based on wealth and birth. And he said America should be run by the natural aristocracy.

Hmm, a "natural aristocracy"? Sounds a bit elitist, don't you think?

One based on "virtues and talents"? Doesn't virtues and talents shound like merit?

Here's another one

"It becomes expedient for promoting the public happiness that those persons, whom nature has endowed with genius and virtue, should be rendered by liberal education worthy to receive, and able to guard the sacred deposit of the rights and liberties of their fellow citizens; and that they should be called to that charge without regard to wealth, birth or other accidental condition or circumstance." --Thomas Jefferson: Diffusion of Knowledge Bill, 1779.

... is one thing. You can do that with a poll. Actually doing it, however, takes some planning, organization, and management. Do you think just having a national referendum that says "We want National Health Care" is actually going to create it?

...electing Dems to the majority of the House and Senate will bring about an end to our militarism in the Middle East or around the world -- collective citizen pressure on government to carry out our wishes must be coordinated, unrelenting, and sustained, and you are quite right, coming up with a decent national health care bill/plan, and seeing it through to implementation absolutely would require much planning, organization, and management.

Are you offering this as an argument against national referendum? Or just pointing out that it is not a magic political instrument that can somehow turn water into wine? In the latter case, I would certainly agree. And in the particular case of national health care, I would expect virtually ALL the heavy lifting of getting something like that off the ground to be borne by committed, hard working, well informed, citizens along with the help of a few sincere and talented lawmakers.

Also, I'm not suggesting national referendum is the only way to get something like a national health care plan on the front burner -- it's one way. If our so called representative democracy worked on behalf of the citizenry rather than the monied corporate elites, I believe we'd already have had such a plan by now, probably for many years.

then you should champion repealing the laws making corporations legal entities with a claim on constitutional rights while granting them virtual immunity from criminal prosecuation.

The rest is just a distraction.

...but how, in the absence of something like direct citizen control, do you propose we motivate a Congress largely bought and paid for by corporate interests to repeal such legislation?

"The rest is just a distraction."

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this statement.

the only way to eliminate the corporate influence in politics is to deny corporations constitutional rights. Anything else does nothing to reform the power structure. As long as corporations have money, and free speech and property rights, they will continue to strongly influence politics.

They will always have money, so the answer is to eliminate the other two factors: free speech and property rights for corporations. I see no need for either

...what I think you're referring to is corporate personhood.

Here's a decent reference link on the subject: http://firstuucolumbus.org/corppers/cponlart.htm

I don't disagree that corporations shouldn't enjoy "personhood" status -- they are not people, they are tangible property and generally should be treated as such legally. I also agree that stripping them of this status would be an important first step in diminishing their undue influence.

I still don't see it happening without something like direct citizen control to impose our will. Congress members would NEVER do it -- these are the people they answer to.

It's the mechanics of drafting such national referendums that is most problematic. Hell, it's difficult enough to get agreement among a majority of 535 Congressmen on the language of a bill. For a citizen initiated referendum, who decides what the issue says (the exact wording which must be voted yes or no) and what points the issue contains? Who drafts it? A committee? Of who? Is it coordinated on-line? Pre-polls? How does the committee or other entity drafting the issue know what the "people" want? Which people? My 50+ years of political experience tell me it is near impossible to get 535 people to agree to much of anything, much less 300 million people with 10 million different ideas on every subject.

Then, what is the mechanism of the national vote? On-line? Run by the states? Who pays for it? There will be many loud groups trying to "run" these referendums. Who decides? The whole scheme is fraught with never-ending arguments. It's hard enough to get our representatives to agree to purpose and progress, I just don't believe it can be managed for the population at large.

...would have to be dealt with, but I'm not convinced, perhaps naively, that they are insurmountable. We do already deal with many of these problems in conducting national elections, do we not?

You have many good detail questions for which I don't have the answers. The link to the Democratic Initiative website in the OP is: http://nationalinitiative.us/index.htm You may be able to find some of your questions addressed there. Sorry I can't be of more help, I am admittedly not well researched on the details of how exactly such a system would work.

If I had your experience, it may be I'd share your pessimism, I certainly do regard it as a non-trivial, complex undertaking. As you know, however, referendum systems have been employed with varying degrees of success by other countries, and at the state level within our own.

What good alternatives, if you don't mind my asking, do you see to direct citizen control for upending undue corporate and other special interest influence over our Congress? How can we make them answer to the people?

..... and have no reason to change my opinion. The NI organization has a lofty goal, and an outline of a process, but I'm afraid they are terribly naive if they think they can come up with a process that works that incorporates the entire citizenry. I also think that their premise of being able to create a Constitutional Amendment without benefit of Congress and the state legislatures is a non-starter. It can go nowhere.

As to your comment that we already deal with some of these problems in our national elections, I think not. AFAIK, we really don't have any National Elections, other than maybe the meeting of the Electoral College. All elections that I am aware of are run at the state and local level (albeit with some oversight from the FEC to ensure compliance with certain Federal laws.) There is no elected office that is subject to a national election by the people.

The referenced site is very vague on the actual mechanics of such elections. The concept of the Electorial Trust and the "Deliberative Committee" is also vague and fraught with oppotunities for endless bickering and litigation. I can't even find anywhere on the site when their authorizing National Initiative vote is to take place, nor how it will be conducted. They say sometime in the future, when enough people have become educated. And, from reading the very few comments on their Forum, I'm afraid they are not getting any more of a positive response than you are here in this thread.

Even if I saw a need for direct citizen control of the government, I don't think it is possible. Aside from the philosophical objections posted by others, any process I can currently envision would be worse than what we already have. Like many issues, I am forced to choose between two imperfect choices. I'll choose our current system of representative government over direct democracy for now. IMHO, there is only one way for "the people" to exert direct control over the government, and that is why the Framers incorporated the Second Amendment.

BTW, I also live in Texas.

...I'm all for exclusively representative democracy in this country if it can be made to work, but it does not appear to me that ours is working at all. It is not US (the citizenry) who are represented in Congress and unless we somehow solve this problem, we have neither direct nor representative democracy (which, by the way, are NOT mutually exclusive), but only an illusion of the latter.

Also, as I've mentioned in another post, other nations have had success with national referendum systems used in conjunction with representative democracy. It seems premature, to me, to conclude on the basis of messiness (organizational problems) that it could not be made to work here, and therefore, we shouldn't even experiment with it. Democracy is, in and of itself, by it's very nature, nothing if not messy, and should be thought of as a dynamic and ongoing experiment. If other nations can overcome the implementation problems, I don't see why we couldn't.

Thank you for your thoughtful input. I've enjoyed our exchange.

A few more comments, and I'm about done.

"...I'm all for exclusively representative democracy in this country if it can be made to work, but it does not appear to me that ours is working at all. It is not US (the citizenry) who are represented in Congress and unless we somehow solve this problem, we have neither direct nor representative democracy (which, by the way, are NOT mutually exclusive), but only an illusion of the latter."

I have to disagree. I think it is working better than any of the alternatives I can imagine. Regardless of corporate influence, it is still WE who push the buttons, pull the levers, or mark the cards, as a bunch of Republican congresspersons recently learned. One problem is that many of WE don't bother to vote. And after watching Jay Leno's and other's "man on the street" interviews, I'm probably glad they don't. They are another example of why direct democracy isn't a good idea.


"Also, as I've mentioned in another post, other nations have had success with national referendum systems used in conjunction with representative democracy."

You've brought up Switzerland a number of times. I've made two trips to Europe in the last six months, which were quite enjoyable, as my last trips were in the early 70's. It gave me an appreciation for how much different the culture is over there. Not bad, mind you, but different. Better (in my mind) in some ways, worse in others, but very different nonetheless. I think the social culture in Europe in general, and Switzerland in particular, can in no way be compared to the US. As others have pointed out, Switzerland is small, homogeneous, and has very deep rooted traditions and culture pertaining to social thought. The US is almost totally opposite, with the US population almost equally divided on very many issues. I've also spent some years in Asia, as my wife is native Chinese and we were married in Taipei. Again, you have very deep rooted social mores in Asian societies that we don't have in our young, very diversified society. What works there won't necessarily work here.

"Democracy is, in and of itself, by it's very nature, nothing if not messy, and should be thought of as a dynamic and ongoing experiment. If other nations can overcome the implementation problems, I don't see why we couldn't."

I fear that if something like the National Initiative were somehow implemented our nation would be destroyed by civil war within 5-10 years. We have too many strongly held divergent views to allow them all to be even debated in an open and undisciplined manner. We can barely contain violence now.

it would be a nightmare.

Abortion - banned. Gay rights - banned. America declared a Christian Nation. etc. etc.

...of those questions if you're so inclined.

Yes, direct citizen control over legislative matters DOES frighten me. We have a system that's worked reasonably well for over two centuries - we would've had a very different history if we voted by plebiscite on big matters.

The founding fathers were wise not to set it up that way.

No, I would not support the measure even though it may result in some things I like. First, I think the things I don't like would win far more often than the things I do like, but more basically, I just fundamentally object to citizens deciding issues of basic rights.

Even beyond rights issues, there would be other horrible policies - no United Nations. Congressional term limits. A ridiculously low level of taxation. No welfare. No affirmative action. Hell, America would've voted to nuke the entire middle East on 9/12/01. It's hard to imagine why ANY thinking person would want to let the voters decide these things.


Yes, I believe the war funding would've passed easily had it been put to a national vote. There is no strong national will to simply pull the funding for this war, despite what you may read here.

This whole argument seems, to me, to be born of frustration and impatience. Our system doesn't work very quickly - that's one of the beauties of it. National policies don't zig and zag, based on the passions of the day. It can be unsatisfying in the short term, but I believe strongly that it is the best system for the long-term.

...is working reasonably well? For who? Ordinary citizens?

"I just fundamentally object to citizens deciding issues of basic rights."

If not decided by citizens, then by who? Is representative democracy not supposed to serve the collective will of the citizenry? Does ours?

"Even beyond rights issues, there would be other horrible policies - no United Nations. Congressional term limits. A ridiculously low level of taxation. No welfare. No affirmative action. Hell, America would've voted to nuke the entire middle East on 9/12/01. It's hard to imagine why ANY thinking person would want to let the voters decide these things."

Why are these problems not seen in Switzerland? All of these matters would not necessarily be referendum issues. That too, would be up to the people.

"Yes, I believe the war funding would've passed easily had it been put to a national vote. There is no strong national will to simply pull the funding for this war, despite what you may read here."

You seem to have altered my question. I asked if this funding would have been approved without a mandatory timetable for withdrawal.

"This whole argument seems, to me, to be born of frustration and impatience. Our system doesn't work very quickly - that's one of the beauties of it."

This argument IS born of frustration -- with a Corporatocracy that does NOT serve the people. Our system, as now practiced, doesn't work PERIOD -- that's the shame of it.

all I can say is your system would be much, much worse.

Plus, there's no way to institute it. There is no such thing as a national election in the US.

...by people like those BushCo appoints (and that would be a nightmare) -- however, it wouldn't have to be that way.

No way to institute it? It would be a matter of making it known to lawmakers that we demand the right to decide some issues by referendum and having legislation drawn up detailing how it would work, and then pressuring them to pass it. This would probably require a good bit of refining over time, but there are some good models already out there, one of which is Switzerland.

I'm not a fan of mob rule.

...Is that how you would characterize Switzerland's political system?

From Wiki's treatment of "Referendum" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum

Switzerland

In Switzerland, there are binding referendums at federal, cantonal and municipal level. They are a central feature of Swiss political life. There are two types of referendums:

* Facultative referendum: Any federal law, certain other federal resolutions, and international treaties that are either perpetual and irredeemable, joinings of an international organization, or that change Swiss law may be subject to a facultative referendum if at least 50,000 people or eight cantons have petitioned to do so within 100 days. In cantons and municipalities, the required number of people is smaller, and there may be additional causes for a faculatative referendum, e.g., expenditures that exceed a certain amount of money. The facultative referendum is the most usual type of referendum, and it is mostly carried out by political parties or by interest groups.
* Obligatory referendum: There must be a referendum on any amendments to the constitution and on any joining of a multinational community or organization for collective security. In many municipalities, expenditures that exceed a certain amount of money also are subject to the obligatory referendum. Constitutional amendments are either proposed by the parliament or the cantons, or they may be proposed by citizens' initiatives, which—on the federal level—need to collect 100,000 valid signatures within 18 months, and must not contradict international laws or treaties. Often, parliament elaborates a counter-proposal to an initiative, leading to a multiple-choice referendum. Very few such initiatives pass the vote, but more often, the parliamentary counter proposal is approved.

The possibility of facultative referendums forces the parliament to search for a compromise between the major interest groups. In many cases, the mere threat of a facultative referendum or of an initiative is enough to make the parliament adjust a law. The referendums slow politics down.

The votes on referendums are always held on a Sunday, typically three or four times a year, and in most cases, the votes concern several referendums at the same time, often at different political levels (federal, cantonal, municipal). Elections are as well often combined with referendums. However, the percentage of voters is generally very low, about 20 to 30 percent unless there is an election. The decisions made in referendums tend to be conservative. Citizens' initiatives are usually not passed. Even referendums on tax cuts are often not passed. The federal rule and referendums have been used in Switzerland since 1848.

not have 300 million people and is not a world super-power with nuclear weapons. There really is no comparison.

...They're a shining example of democracy that makes referendum work for the citizenry who actually have something to say about how things are done.

How do size and military strength rule us out for such a system?

your system is dumb, unworkable, and would make this country far worse-off than it is today. It's a childish attempt to get what you want NOW. You may as well just throw yourself on the ground and cry.

...in lieu of an actual argument is what's childish.

BTW, how's our Corporatocracy been working for you, MonkeyFunk -- getting your way a lot these days are you?

have made many reasoned responses, all of which you ignored and simply tossed out the ludicrous comparison to Switzerland.

Your idea is dumb. It would make things much, much worse than they are now. Good night.

...I never would've dreamed in a million years I'd have a reason to type that sentence. It was kinda fun. I think I'll do it again:

Good night, MonkeyFunk.

It would give even more power to the oppressors in situations where civil rights are being violated. You don't like the supreme court ruling against seperate but equal in brown vs board of education, no problem just get the nation to vote to overturn it and throw black people back into inferior schools and stuff.

...the potential for a sudden avalanche of bad legislation resulting from a system that permits some issues to be decided by referendum (by the people) are well founded.

..... that the majority of the people may be against things you are for, and vice versa? Or do you believe that surely, the majority of citizens are right thinking progressives like you?

...referendum as a means of determining policy/legislative matters on this basis. I live in Texas and last year gay marriage was on the midterm ballot as a referendum issue. I was disappointed with the predictable outcome of that vote, but I don't accept my disappointment as a reason for cutting the people out of the decision process. I think they decided wrongly, I'll live with it.
Perhaps it can be revisited on another ballot and overturned. Such is democracy.

Every time Congress enacted new legislation, some group somewhere would start a campaign to undo it. Instead of groups trying to find legislative compromises, they would have the incentive to fight against them. The result would be calamitous uncertainty imo.

As for the Switzerland example: as a practical matter, it takes 50,000 petitioners to seek to undo a parliamentary act and 100,000 petitioners to initiate a vote on a constitutional amendment. In the US, this would translate into around 2 million and 4 million petitioners respectively. I don't doubt that these numbers could be achieved, but the opportunities for fraud and the likelihood of challenges to petitions being tied up in the courts for months or years suggests to me that the entire systems would simply fail of its own weight in the US.

...How would you describe the so called representative democracy we've got now? Is it getting a passing grade? Do you feel fairly represented?

Is the current system perfect? No. Is it because it is a representative democracy? No. Unbridled majoritarianism will leave the rights of the minority unprotected. While we don't do a perfect job, we at least have laws on the books that protect minorities. I shudder to think what would have happened under a "pure democracy" in the weeks after 9/11. Yes, things were bad, but it would've been far worse under your proposed system, imo.

I think a lot of the problems with our current system relate to the corrupting impact of money. I think the perpetual campaigning, and fundraising, when tied to the ability of lawmakers to direct money to pet projects distorts representative democracy. But reforming the system strikes me as a far better goal than tossing it out.

My interpretation would be that a lot of people have simply glanced at the spin the OP puts on the issue, and thought "more power to the people - that must be good, mustn't it?", whereas those people who've actually thought about what such a measure would consist of and result in have been much more sceptical about it.

In some ways, that's not a bad analogy for why I think such a proposal would be a bad one...

...poll results of 5-7-07?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3257428

So any argument you disagree with is spin? And anyone one who votes differently than you did must not have given it careful thought?

LOL -- Thanks for clearing that up.

I think that *your* argument *in this case* places a misleading and obfuscatory spin on the issue, and that most - not all - of those who have agreed with you *in this case* probably didn't think about it terribly carefully, as shown by the paucity of posts supporting you.

This does not imply that I think that the same is true of other arguments I disagree with.

I do think that in any poll where most people vote one way, and nearly all posters go the other, the people voting against the posts are quite likely not to have thought things through, and the OP is quite likely to be misleading, although this will not be the case in all such threads.

Looking at your other poll, my guess is that the difference is due to some property of the thread - possibly more people read the arguments put forwards before voting, because the post titles looked more interesting, or something. Or possibly it's just random error.

...despite whether they always get their way or not, and are not afraid of experimenting with national referendum in the U.S. Democracy is an ongoing experiment whether you like it or not. When we are not being well served by one approach we shouldn't be afraid to experiment with others.

nt

We have an orderly way of voting only occasionally and living with the results until the next set time for our mandate rolls around. This is an expression of societal specialization which is what has allowed us to advance as a species and a culture. Due to this, I don't much care for ballot initiatives, recall elections or impeachments. I have a life to live, children to feed, career goals to strive for and anyone who calls this approach cowardice or lack of caring is either a fool or a child.

This is one of the most disgusting things about the modern Republicans: like termites, they never sleep. If an election doesn't please them, they have no compunction about messing up everybody's life by redistricting, constant legal harassment, recall elections and impeachment. They're pissy little bullies who have no regard for the lives of others. (That's actually a fairly accurate distillation of my view of conservatives in general: assholes who don't consider that those with different opinions deserve to even exist.)

I don't want constant and permanent revolution. I'll step up to the barricades and do what I can when the time comes, but those who want the time to always be here are shrill and tiresome.

There I was, sitting in a coffee house reading the paper in 1980 when I saw that even with all the Anderson voters voting for him, Carter still would have lost. It was ugly and the truth about these monarchic racist thugs was obvious and I marched with a black armband that day, but I accepted the will of my fellow citizens, ever scheming for the next periodic plebiscite.

The Constitution has many flaws, but to circumvent it is to invite disaster. Much as I care about and am consumed by politics, I don't want to have to fight every waking moment, and that's what will happen if we continue down the cynical path of abiding by elections we like and circumventing those we don't.

As for the Declaration of Independence, it's a position paper, period. It's nothing but an abstract to give some focus to a messy insurrection, and that's one of the reasons the godcrap wasn't removed. The Constitution is the law, and it provides a fairly good structure for coexistence.

...I'm the one seeking particular results on particular issues, which is a gross misrepresentation. I'm merely polling people on the question of direct democracy in the U.S. Apparently, the idea frightens some, and it seems to be precisely because they believe they wouldn't get the particular results THEY want on their particular pet issues. Cutting people out of the process in order to achieve particular results is the way of the Neocons -- it's why Bush got to serve instead of Gore in 2000, and instead of Kerry in 2004. This should not be the way of the progressive left.

I want democracy restored, if not by a system that includes national referendum, then purely representative democracy would be fine, so long as it can be made to serve the people. What we have in place now simply does not.

If you've got an idea how to put the great Corporatocracy back into the hands of the people, please let us hear it.

No need to enumerate them.

...You mean like the national polling that has consistently shown that the majority of our citizens would like nationalized health care, our troops withdrawn from Iraq, better public schools, protection of a woman's right to choose?

If the majority of our citizens confined their thinking/ideas to be more like yours (not strange), would you then be prepared to support direct democracy in the U.S.?

we would have far GREATER restrictions on abortion than exist today.

Put to a national vote, we would've nuked the Middle East on 9/12/01

Put to a national vote, we would've nuked Iran in 1980

Put to a national vote, gay marriage would be outlawed nationwide.

Put to a national vote, taxation would be at absurdly low levels.

Put to a national vote, all sorts of horrible ideas would be law. I can't believe you refuse to see this.

If the geniuses who founded our democracy thought direct democracy was the best system, they would've implemented it. They did not. They were far too wise to do that.

...in the U.S. if the people would only vote as you wish for them too?

I've already stated that.

You seem to never read people's responses and reply to the substance of their posts - you only want to demand that we agree with you.

We do not, for many reasons, all of them outlined here in this thread, but you continue to ignore them.

I use those examples to show the types of things that citizens ought not have direct control over - it's too dangerous.

I have given philosphical arguments against this - there are also plenty of practical arguments, but your inability to read and respond to anything we say doesn't give me hope that a discussion of those practical issues would be any more fruitful than this silly discussion we're having now.

...I'd just like to hear a counter argument that boils down to something other than 'I'm afraid the majority might vote differently than I would like on my pet issues, therefore I don't support direct democracy.'

you just don't read them.

Something like 60% believe angels are real and living among us.

Things like that.

If the majority of our citizens confined their thinking/ideas to be more like yours (not strange), would you then be prepared to support direct democracy in the U.S.?

That's just not going to happen. You know how dumb the average person is. Half of them are even dumber than that.

...let me try another way:

If you had good reason to believe that national referendum results on all matters important to to would consistently go your way, would you then be prepared to support direct democracy in the U.S.

Sure, if everyone consistently wanted to do things my way I'd embrace direct democracy in a heartbeat.

That's not going to happen of course, because some people have different values, needs, and wants than I do; and a lot of them are just too damn dumb to understand what they would be deciding in many cases.

I'm a lot smarter than most, and I don't consider myself fully competent to make every decision at every level.

...the citizenry making, by majority rule, all decisions at every level -- quite the contrary.

Thanks for answering my question.

then I will believe that I am in agreement with the majority of Americans. Until then, I oppose your proposal.

...from virtually ALL who do not wish to even experiment with national referendum -- 'I'm all for majority rule unless I happen to be in disagreement with the majority on my pet issues, in which case I don't support it,' which strikes me as an absolutely absurd position. It's tantamount to saying: "I support the use of electric stop light signals at intersections, but only so long as my car is equipped with a transmitter that permits me to turn the light green when I approach."

It's more like "The only place I'll ever support national referendums is in your dreams"

IOW, I don't support national referendums, regardless of the circumstances

...If so, please explain why. If not, what do you propose we do about it?

Just because I have a low post count doesn't mean I've never seen the "disagree with me? You must be a corporatist/neocon/prowar/DLCer/etc" argument before.

In fact, I've seen it in this very thread. You used it against monkeyfunk. Do you really think that one's position on national referendums is the acid-test of anti-corporatism?

...I'm just curious to know how you feel about how our current system seems to be working/not working. If you don't wish to answer, you certainly don't have to.

If you don't wish to answer, you certainly don't have to.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html

Loaded Question
Alias:
Complex Question
Many Questions
Plurium Interrogationum
Translation: "many questions", Latin
Form:
A question with a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition.

Example:
Why should merely cracking down on terrorism help to stop it, when that method hasn't worked in any other country? Why are we so hated in the Muslim world? What did our government do there to bring this horror home to all those innocent Americans? And why don't we learn anything, from our free press, about the gross ineptitude of our state agencies? about what's really happening in Afghanistan? about the pertinence of Central Asia's huge reserves of oil and natural gas? about the links between the Bush and the bin Laden families?
Source: Mark Crispin Miller, "Brain Drain", Context, No. 9

Analysis

Exposition:
A "loaded question", like a loaded gun, is a dangerous thing. A loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption. The question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have a wife. If you are unmarried, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded.

...I just asked for your commentary on our current system and how it seems to be working/not working. If that's overly sensitive or painful subject matter for you, by all means feel free not to answer -- but don't try to call the question something it's not.

If you don't wish to answer, you certainly don't have to. If that's an overly sensitive or painful subject matter for you, by all means feel free not to answer -- but don't try to call the question something it's not.

...I do not and have never beaten my wife. Is that what you're after?

If you don't think our current system amounts to a Corporatocracy that's easy enough to say. If you think a question is loaded why not challenge the rhetorical nature of it?

Let's try that question:

Do you think our current political system, as now practiced, is unduly influenced by corporate and other special interests? -- A Corporatocracy, so to speak? And if so, what should we do about it?

and I specifically asked that you not turn the question into something it is not.

"Do you think our current political system, as now practiced, is unduly influenced by corporate and other special interests? -- A Corporatocracy, so to speak? And if so, what should we do about it?"

National referendums (remember? the subject of this thread YOU started) have nothing to do with corporatism. If you want to discuss corporatism, start a thread on it. Then, I can ignore it.

...and the reason couldn't be more obvious -- you know our system is terribly broken, you have no answers for it, and you don't wish to acknowledge this. To do so wouldn't serve your purpose here, which is simply to trash an idea (referendum/direct democracy), without putting forth any reasoned argument, that has been demonstrated to work in other nations, because you're afraid of it.

Not very compelling -- but take heart, Doggyboy, you do not appear to be alone.

"A "loaded question", like a loaded gun, is a dangerous thing. A loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption"

And the presumption is "you know our system is terribly broken, you have no answers for it, and you don't wish to acknowledge this. To do so wouldn't serve your purpose here, which is simply to trash an idea" You presume this to be true, though you know almost nothing about me.

the fact remains that you did make a presumption, showing that your question was indeed a loaded one.

With Majority rule abortion would be banned, people of color wouls still be sitting at the back of the bus, people with disabilities would have no rights, Christianity would be the official state sponsored religion, gays would be forced back underground, etc etc.

Welcome to reality. Mob rule does not equate to justice. It only brings about the oppression of minorities.

You cannot try to equate Switzerland with the United States. They are vastly different in size and population.

...the use of national referendum -- they are not anything alike.

"It only brings about the oppression of minorities."

You seem to be assuming national referendum would be corrupted by the ruling elite corporate interests, which would be a concern, but is not a good reason do reject direct democracy any more than it is a valid reason to dismantle representative democracy. Would you not agree that our so called representative democracy is very much corrupted by corporate and other special interests?

Where did I equate Switzerland and the U.S.? I cited Switzerland as an example of a working democracy that successfully makes use of national referendum which we could study and learn from -- that's all. And you do not construct any argument for why national referendum cannot be made to work here due to our size and population. Please explain.

...could go into extra innings, folks.

...How is it a disaster?

Colorado has a set up very like you describe and it has brought things like amendment 2 and the TABOR amendment.

Don't know what they are?

Look it up.

They need to be lead.

:sarcasm: