There was an article in yesterdays paper. The Oregonian to be exact that I linked to above. It is written about Direct Democracy in Oregon and asks if it is a good thing for the state. I think the author asks some good questions but his overall position is one that after 1912 all the good that the initiative system brought to Oregon politics was done and now the system has just brought us a bloated constitution and a budget that is out of control because state legislature is handcuffed by the whims of the public at large. In the interest of full disclosure I must add that I have been employed in the past by a signature gathering firm and will do so again if the opportunity presents itself.
I have to disagree. I realize there are problems with the system in Oregon. But, there are problems with every states system and nothing is going to make every voter happy. But DIRECT DEMOCRACY is what makes Oregon special. It is what allows the average voter to have a voice. I may disagree and often I do with where the money is coming from or what the particular issue is that we are going to be voting on. But, I get to vote. In other states I am not afforded even that. There are laws passed without any discussion or input from the voters who put the politicians in office in the first place.
To get rid of this would take the state backwards to a time when the elite where the ones voting and they liked it that way. Yes, Democracy is messy and ugly and that is how it should be. In truth if you want things to be run smoothly then we should install a benevolent dictator. Because, believe me, then things would run smoothly. The budget would be balanced, trains would run on time, and most likely Oregon would be a much quieter place to live. But, this idea goes completely against the so called origins of the United States. I believe that Direct Democracy serves the people best as messy as it is. It allows the people a voice and that voice is loud and sometimes unorganized and ugly but it is a voice.
As far as I am concerned, I would not have it any other way.
4 comments:
I am behind you 100% on this one Lance, we may not always like the results, but at least we have a voice in the fight. You are correct in saying there is no perfect form of government, even a benevolent dictator would have detractors since we are indeed all individuals. Thanks for posting at least once a week brother, I missed your enjoyable posts when you took your hiatus.
Not necessarily disagreeing with your position, Lance, but just to play devil's advocate...
There are two potential weaknesses in this argument.
First, one could argue that our elected representatives do provide a voice to the electorate, and that they ignore the wants/needs of their constituents at their political peril. The disparate nature of the wants/needs of a given representative's constituents will inevitably leave some segments unsatisfied, but as long as the majority are pleased he/she will retain their office. (IMHO elitism, whatever definition we may apply, has no bearing on whether a given policy is good or bad. It's the context of politics it's just a marketing term.)
Secondly, does the initiative process really reflect the spirit of direct democracy and the will of the people, or does it reflect the priorities of the moneyed special interests that fund the majority of the efforts? How many initiatives really come from the grass roots, arising from concerned citizens and neighborhoods, as opposed to political figures who already have Statewide prominence and/or political organizations which operate across state lines, sometimes even operating at the national level? I fear that the undeniably attractive notion of direct democracy is being used as a smokescreen by political figures who use it to do an end-run on representative democracy, often after they've failed to implement those same policies through that process. One could make an argument that that makes it less, rather than more, democratic, especially since the instigators face no negative repercussions should those policies fail- they can simply point to the elected representatives responsible for executing them and place the blame there.
Again, I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but I do have a hard time cooking up anything that looks much like unabashed enthusiasm either.
Those are good questions Steve. I may try to answer them more fully in another blog post. I do not have an answer at present except to say that I prefer the present system over not having the process at all.
If there would be a way to do it cleaner and without the interference of the special interest groups then by all means lets do it. But, right now that does not seem possible.
There is a way to largely remove the influence of money (the initiative process is not the only place it subverts democracy, obviously) although it's pretty draconian- simply ban paid political activity. In one fell swoop the fight falls to the side that can muster the most volunteers, and that without the benefit of a sophisticated marketing machine to recruit them.
Post a Comment