Direct Democracy - A Response

Sir,

In “Could Direct Democracy be the Future?” Mr William Clarke argues that with the use of modern technologies, voters could decide their own motions. Unfortunately this system does not work. Such a current system already exists in California without the use of technology, and it is through the use of the referendum and the initiative processes. The former sends a piece of pending legislation from the legislature directly to voters. The latter process, the initiative, is even worse. With enough signatures any registered voter can place a motion on the ballot. It is not uncommon then that there are often two measures on the ballot that aim for opposite goals. It is not uncommon that they both pass, with the measure receiving the most votes becoming law. Sometimes two similar motions are available, and when they both pass, the legislature has to somehow make a compromise between both. This has caused a great headache and has made California the most dysfunctional state in the United States. For example, California’s current education budget is officially around 40% of the state’s expenses. No precise figure can be given (i.e. no one knows how much is spent on education) because too many laws have passed through direct democracy. Furthermore, measures to increase social services are constantly approved, such as for education or the mismanaged high-speed train project (with construction yet to begin), whilst taxes are historically rejected, such as the infamous Proposition 13, which limits property tax increases and even makes increasing income taxes more difficult.

Overall, direct democracy does not work and is best left in the hands of the legislators. Perhaps they are career politicians, but if we can learn anything from the Ancient Athenians, it is that people don’t really want to serve on the legislature unless paid, and that most people do not have the inclination or the time to be involved in direct democracy.

Paul Geerligs