For all of the pontificating about how undemocratic our political system is and how much better a strictly majoritarian system would be, I’m not seeing any calls for direct democracy. Has anyone wondered why? I would think that if you believe in a strictly majoritarian system (1/2 + 1 votes rules) that direct democracy would be the ideal.
Isn’t that pretty much what happens at the state and local level? Sometimes its a plurality rather than a majority but the most votes wins. Seems to work OK.
The bigger risk to “democracy” is election denial people. There are several candidates who are saying that if elected they have both the ability and willingness to overturn elections if they think something was wrong. These are the same people who cant offer any evidence of problems with the elections they complain about. This is widely supported by their voters as they believe they were cheated in the last election.
Steve
It’s not remotely what happens, at least not in Illinois and Chicago. Corporations and labor unions, particularly public employees’ unions, rule.
The actual views of the people are quite different than might be inferred from our elected representatives.
@Steve
Check out “The Hunt “ on Amazon TV.
Bring tissues.
I am not following you. Your claim is that in Chicago the candidate with the most votes does not win? I thought the topic was direct democracy/majoritarian voting? Corporations, unions, special interests probably have undue influence everywhere but that seems like a separate issue.
Steve
Do you know what a Hobson’s choice is? That’s what it represents.
The problem with direct democracy is that there is no protection for minorities. The Bill of Rights, the Senate, the Electoral College, and the Supreme Court are all intended to limit what the majority can do.
One might note that all leftist parties are top-down authoritarian, and they routinely persecute nonconforming minorities. The participatory democracy people demand that the side losing a vote not only accept the results of the vote, but moreover that they repudiate their own position and publicly embrace that of the winners. Struggle sessions are the core institution of leftists, the other being hangings.
Sure, but what does that have to do with the question? At the state and local levels we clearly have voting decisions working on a majoritarian basis. There is no electoral college. No one has direct democracy. Way too complicated. If we had direct democracy you think corporations, unions and special interests would suddenly lose their influence?
Steve
Do we have majoritarian rule, when the candidates can’t get more more than 50 per cent of the eligible voters to turn out? Local elections see a 15 to 27 per cent turn out. Checkout WhoVotesForMayor.org.
Elections at the local level are constrained by the federal rules. No state or local jurisdiction can suppress minority rights because of federal priorities in rules.
There is limited direct democracy in some states via referendums. These are popular here in Colorado, and there are some every election cycle. We have a whole bunch this time around. Colorado has three types
– amendments to the constitution which require a super-majority to pass
– Propositions that change state law that are sponsored by the state legislature. These are usually promoted by the legislature for things the legislature wants but the Governor has threatened to veto.
– Finally, there are citizen-sponsored propositions (changes to state law) that get on the ballot with enough signatures.
Propositions are limited in that they change state law, so the legislature and governor could reverse them with the normal legislative process if they wanted to.
Overall there are good things and bad things to say about this system, but I think it provides a good alternative to the normal process, and I think has contributed to less dysfunction in the legislature here compared to other states. Obstruction isn’t as effective at preventing legislation, for example. And we’ve passed some ballot measures by wide majorities that never would have passed through the legislature.
But some of them are kind of dumb. For example, we have three citizen initiatives about changing the laws on alcohol sales and licensing liquor stores that are primarily a battle between competing business interests.
Steve,
“Isn’t that pretty much what happens at the state and local level? Sometimes its a plurality rather than a majority but the most votes wins. Seems to work OK.”
I think Dave is talking about people directly deciding things, which is what I think he means about “direct democracy.” If you want a purely majoritarian system, that is certainly one way to do it.
What Bob S said…….
You don’t have to think about it too long.
Yeah, I think I partially misread him. That said, in a direct democracy I think you also have to be pretty much majoritarian.
I am neutral on referendums. Seem to be equally good or bad and just as susceptible to special interests. I do think they are bad when used for budgeting.
Steve