Letâ€™s have lots of referendums

Posted: Sat 27 Jun 2009 10 30 am

Hereâ€™s another thing I like about the rectangular states: their initiative and referendum rules. Colorado has perhaps the most ample provisions for direct democracy of any US state. Its people regularly bypass their legislators to settle questions directly.

As a rule, direct democracy tends to favour limited government, for the obvious reason that politicians tend to be more pro-politician than non-politicians. Referendums are likelier than professional legislators to produce balanced budget amendments, term limits and recall mechanisms. But it would be wrong to see direct democracy as an intrinsically Rightist force. Recent referendums in Colorado have resulted a hike in the minimum wage, a levying of a tobacco tax and a ban on bear-traps.

This is important, because the right of popular initiative needs to have broad support, which it wouldnâ€™t have if it were seen simply as a conservative device. Referendums are Right-wing only to the extent that the standing bureaucracies that rule us are generally to the Left of public opinion, and plebiscites make it harder for them to pursue their pet schemes.

â€œWould you want a referendum on hanging?â€ I am often asked. Yes. As an opponent of capital punishment, and I accept that I might lose. But thatâ€™s what democracy means. (Incidentally, Iâ€™m not sure I would lose: those US states that allow for citizensâ€™ initiative have been statistically less likely to reintroduce the death penalty than those which donâ€™t; and the only referendum on the issue, in Ireland, resulted in abolition.) Referendums are always and everywhere a good idea, serving to remind our rulers of whom they answer to. Letâ€™s start by having one on the EU.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100001232/lets-have-lots-of-referendums/

Joined: 03 Jan 2006 Posts: 593

The problem with a referendum on hanging is that the outcome can depend too much on mood. If it comes after a very nasty crime which fires up public emotion, the result may be a definate Yes, but then after the public have had time to settle down they might decide they over-reacted and wish they'd voted No. In this case would the Yes vote be a true reflection of how people generally felt? While that same argument could be used in political elections, those elections are not usually about life or death.

Then we have the tabloids to consider. How many people are tried via the media, and how many mobs are whipped up by banner headlines only for us to find, 20+ years later, that the wong guy was convicted?

I don't think that any emotive issues should be dealt with via referendum, because emotions are too unstable. There always need to be checks and balances within a secure procedure for certain issues.

Posted: Sun 28 Jun 2009 5 18 pm

I think that could be a problem, Sandman. But only if you can fill in your postal vote today.

If you have to go to a polling station three or four weeks after the question is posed there would be ample time for cool consideration of the thorniest matter, and ample time to hear arguments pro and con. In the case you pose, I am quite sure the considered opinion of the voters would be against capital punishment.

I am all for direct democracy ... but I agree with you: it must not be "instant", even though the technology would allow it.

Joined: 03 Jan 2006 Posts: 593

Bestbear wrote:

If you have to go to a polling station three or four weeks after the question is posed there would be ample time for cool consideration of the thorniest matter, and ample time to hear arguments pro and con.

But then you might have the big banner headlines between the calling of a referendum and the actual vote. I doubt the referendum would take place each times there was a serious crime. I imagine it would be a one time thing, with a set date. If the day before the vote the nation's emotions are stirred, then there will be no cooling off period and emotions, rather than reason, would rule the day.

I like to think there are enough rational people in society to allow for common sense to prevail. After all, whenever a mob does gather to burn down the home of a paediatrician, it's only a tiny percentage of the community, but we never see anyone taking counter action so it is difficult to know what's going through the minds of those not directly involved. Do they quietly approve, and so are likely to vote with the mob? Or would they, if they could do so quietly, vote for a calmer and more intelligent solution to problems?

My opinion is that some decisions are best left to the long established debating procedures of Parliament, to which we should elect our best people to represent us and vote on our behalf.

Posted: Sun 28 Jun 2009 9 55 pm

Well .... perhaps you are right. The system served us well enough until the progressives started tinkering with it, after all ..... Rolling Eyes

Posted: Mon 29 Jun 2009 6 32 am

Bestbear wrote:

I am quite sure the considered opinion of the voters would be against capital punishment.

I'm not so sure about that.