Has direct democracy outlived its usefulness?

By: Steven Greenhut

A key rule for political reform is that it should be as neutral as possible. Think of it in terms of a football game. It may be wise to add a penalty to, say, better protect quarterbacks, but such a change should not be done to help a particular team with a shoddy front line. The rules should be adjusted only if it’s better for the game.

Californians need to keep that in mind as they face renewed efforts to revamp the state’s 102-year-old experiment in direct democracy — the initiative, referendum and recall. Gov. Hiram Johnson and the Progressives ushered in these far-reaching reforms to check the power of corrupt political machines and corporate interests. Progressives had deep faith in the ability of average citizens to vote for the “public interest.”

The initiative process has been subject to the same sleaziness and self-interest common in all political endeavors, which sparks regular calls for reform. Many initiatives are pushed by special interests or serve mainly to enrich insiders. Others are sold to the public in wildly dishonest ways.  READ MORE »

My Take – In Ohio we have a Ballot Initiative process that has actually changed the Ohio Constitution.  It is clear most of these initiatives were nothing more than manipulations of a generally uninformed and misinformed public.  Passing a law is one thing, but to be able to change a state constitution through such a process is insane.    Since I was 16 years old I have been reading about ballot initiatives and the controversial relationship this creates between the public and the state legislatures, and I have gone back and forth on it.  I have concluded that ballot initiatives do more damage than good.  

When the nation was being formed those responsible for writing the U.S. Constitution had an opportunity to watch what the states were doing, remember it took eleven years before the Constitution was adopted.  Pennsylvania was so democratic it actually elected the officers to their state militia.  It was a disaster.  That’s why the Constitution created the complex staggered election process of two year terms for representatives, representing a small slice of the public in their states; six year terms for senators who would be chosen by their state’s government to represent the state’s interests and be able to veto federal efforts to grab power; and four year terms for the president.    Ballot initiatives fundamentally undermine this process.  Repeal the 16^th and 17^th amendments.