We've talked in class about the difference between direct democracy (where The People directly make policy decisions) versus representative democracy (where elected representatives make decisions). There are pros and cons of both, and California may provide an instructive example.
California has had severe problems with its budget for years. Like most states, it spends far more money each year than it brings in. Unlike many states, however, a lot of California's budget is determined, not by representatives, but by initiatives that the public votes on directly.
This experiment in direct democracy began in 1978 when the public voted to pass Proposition 13 which reduced property taxes by 57%. But since then, Proposition 13 has proved to be a double-edged sword. "One side effect was to protect the people from the government suddenly and wildly raising property taxes," says Bob Hertzberg, a former Assembly Speaker. "That was done. But we didn't resolve how to pay for the services that people want. So we have created this crazy government structure in Sacramento held together by duct tape and bailing wire. It's not coherent and needs to be changed."
In 2009, California's tax revenues declined dramatically and this led to a multi-billion dollar budget gap. Some politicians and pundits blamed the problem on California's initiatives and denounced "ballot-box budgeting". Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said, "All of those propositions tell us how we must spend our money... This is no way, of course, to run a state."
So here we have a case where, when the decisions are left to the public, voters vote to lower taxes but also, simultaneously, to expand social services. When there is a budget crisis, elected representatives are limited in what they can do to fix the problem because they cannot override the results of public initiatives.
Direct democracy is the embodiment of popular sovereignty - the idea that The People should govern. However, elected representatives often have expertise that the majority of the public lacks. Both of these are important principles to consider in generating meaningful policies.
Under what circumstances does direct democracy best serve the public interest? Conversely, when is representative democracy more preferable?
I agree with direct democracy to some instincts, but it in this case because there is a budget crisis and limit resource in human services I think that there should be some compromising as of who and what is going to be governed, ruled and allocate to fix the problem. The two party should come together and if no resolution then allow congress to step in and make a decision but still have direct democracy.
ReplyDeleteOr have direct democracy enter a ballot that would give a representative power to correct the problem but with conditions. The conditions will be that although he is the representative, the people should still be informed of what is going on and after is corrected you should no longer represent us we can go back to direct democracy. lol
ReplyDeleteClearly this is a situation where we can see that a direct democracy may not be the best idea as the people who are voting on issues affecting the budget have absolutely no idea how it affects the financial stability (or lack thereof) of the state. Looking at the financial crisis in the state of California regarding their budget, it is evident that there needs to be a drastic change and policies need to be revisited and voted on again, as the one is place is not working. Of course I think that people should have some say in what their money is being spent on, but we cannot live in a society where we expect roads to be drivable, schools have adequate funding and housing taxes low and not be realistic about where that money is coming from to do such; if it is not coming from us as the residents of that particular state. We simply cannot have it both ways - either we pay for it or we don't have it, because if we don't pay and still have it, this will clearly be the result. It is like constantly going to the ATM and expecting money to be there but never depositing a check or cash to make that withdrawal. Obviously there will be a deficit as the budget is not being balanced as there are more withdrawals than deposits.
ReplyDeleteI think that direct democracy is well served in situations where people can vote on issues that do not severely impact the budget, as they may not be informed enough to make those decisions on certain issues or may not have enough knowledge of the situation for it to be positive. For instance, voting on the days for a garbage pickup versus how many days (it would have to be considered who is paying the city workers for the extra time or hiring of additional workers to meet the demand) or one on should uniforms be mandatory in public schools (for most parents we see this may be preferable as it may have a direct impact on our budget having to supply clothes for the school year to sometimes more than one child) are issues where I think the idea of a direct democracy is conceivable. As far as a representative democracy goes, this may be the best resolution for the state of California. When decisions that impact the budget are make without the knowledge of how much things actually cost, it can obviously be detrimental. I think Congress should step in at this point, as it has been years and there has been no improvement in the budget. I would love to live in a city with low taxes, great public schools and the best public services but as an informed citizen I am aware that there is a cost attached to those things, and we cannot expect to have them and not pay for them.
Direct Democracy I feel is a overrated type of way to run anything. As a citizen I trust that my government and my state I live in will fill my needs as a person and help me in any way they can. I'm not saying government is all good, and they are doing everything correctly but they understand problems better than me. I would say most people, including myself don't even understand how the government works or the programs they do. Sometimes people like to just read or believe what they want instead of actually researching it. Direct Democracy should be on simple issues like a new school being here or a new park somewhere basic things that have little effect on the state itself.
ReplyDeleteAs we can see in California allowing Direct Democracy to take over was not the greatest idea. Lowering taxes I agree I am all for that who want's to pay taxes honestly. Sometimes we don't really see the big picture, maybe those taxes we pay are for something to help keep the state stable and they could use it down the road to make sure we are not going bankrupt.
--Stephen Nourijanian
Stephen, I agree with you to the point when you said who wants to pay taxes, and at times we do need that representative to fight for us and oversee certain situations concerning the country, but if you take a look at our deficit according to Professor Domanski stats, we are 19 TRILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT,are you kidding me, and look who much it cost to run NASA 753 million dollars in what, just be in competition with other countries and to see if there is some sort of human life that the United States will try and take over, and not to mention our Waters in America are contaminated we don't even know if we all are going to be genocide at one point because of it. think about it. In my opinion I think that direct democracy should be used at some point especially in the issues that I mentioned above, Let the people decide when it comes to Human Resources.
ReplyDeleteFiscally, I favor a representative democracy. Socially, I favor a direct democracy. To keep America the free and great country that it's supposed to be, the people need to have some sort of voice in settling political issues. However, in certain circumstances, the public has the potential to make irrational, ill-advised decisions. For example - we see what happened in California when we allowed direct propositions to influence fiscal issues: it ended up in sheer disaster. The idea of having a representative democracy still means the people have a voice, we elect officials that will settle issues that we are not well inclined to settle ourselves. For social issues (i.e., gay marriage, smoking bans, legalization of drugs, etc.) I do strongly believe that a direct democracy is important in these cases, because they are matters of morality (which you don't need to be trained or educated on to make a decent decision), not matters of crunching numbers and foreign policy, etc. The general population's voice should be heard and honored on social issues, and I believe the population's voice should be heard, and considered, but not always honored on more pressing matters like budgeting and foreign policy, or we'd be in danger of collapsing economically. The double-edged sword of a direct democracy does exist and I can't go without acknowledging this: tyranny of the majority can trample individual rights. A healthy American democracy has both a direct and representative democracy in place, and a healthy balance of: 1. giving the people a voice, and 2. choosing people who are more suited to settling our political issues, is important.
ReplyDeleteRepresentative democracy is the more intellect direction a state government should take when considering what gets put on the ballot and also how to manage budget. There must be a stern directive stance with the people. For instance in California case, Ofourse if you allow a petition that states to lower taxes to be put on the ballot it will pass, people don't think about the financial strain that will put on the state from both cutting taxes and expanding social services. This idea of direct democracy could only stay at the state level. Do we really want this to go to a federal level, Where bills on national security depends on an ill informed population that will view it subjectively. Basically both directives direct and representative democracy come with there pros and cons but the question is how much are you willing to lose, clearly with direct democracy you lose more. Direct democracy from what I viewed, only applies to petitions that boost population morale and give them the idea that voters can actually change things and that there voices are being heard. For example the legal marijuana bill a harmless bill that had a majoring backing from voters, That got passed in Washington D.C benefitted the state and boost the voters morale. But what about Occupy wall street that called for strict reforms to be put a wall street. You think a petition for a bill like that would be put on the ballot by voters or even be considered because of voters.
ReplyDeleteI believe that having direct democracy may not have been a good decision for the state of California because of course the majority of the people would vote to pay less in taxes because they choose what is more convenience for their pockets without seen that they are getting good benefits for that money. I agree to what Judy mentioned before having people that probably are not totally informed about what is going on around them cans make a big impact and affect the state financially.
ReplyDeleteCongress should get into these because having the public vote has not make it any better. The majority of people want to pay lower taxes and have good roads, good public schools and so on without even knowing that the money that we pay we get back plus we see it reflected in those public services that we get.
-CD
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAt the same time is good that they let the citizens decide for what they want is like giving them their rights of freedom of speech, but I believe that in these case if they saw the idea of having the citizens paying lower taxes did not work out they should have the congress get involved in these and make a decision that would be beneficial for the state and for the citizen. It is like at these point they should come with a better solution and if having direct democracy is not working out then the next solution could be having representative democracy step in because they know more about the state problems.
Delete-CD
The founders did not trust the public and created a representative democracy. The senators and president were even both first elected not by the public, but by the electoral college. A representative democracy truly works when the representatives understand the system and what their constituents want. However, this is often skewed from because of the money the representatives receives while they are on their campaign and different loyalties they have. They then often forget about what their constituents want or need.
ReplyDeleteA direct democracy works better when the people are educated and willing to give in order to receive some type of services. In California, the people just want services and lower taxes without putting in anything. They are unwilling to compromise. Further, clearly the public is not educated on matters such as this which the representatives help and offer compromise. There needs to be a little of both for government to truly work. Right now, we are seeing the representatives not necessarily represent their constituents, but their own interests and government has been halted numerous times. The constituents needs to remind their representatives why there are there and what is important to them. It is all about balance and compromise.
- Reem Rasheed
Public Initiatives can be a good thing for people who are informed and the consequences of what they are voting for. California is a perfect example of how it was detrimental to their budget. The voter took it as they wanted to pay less taxes and get more social programs which is not a way to run a state. The role of expertise is a very important factor when it comes to certain issues. Direct democracy has failed and that is why the Framers made the U.S. to be a representative democracy. These initiative also are an example of "Tyranny of the majority" affecting everyone in the state. Direct democracy should be used on smaller scale issues while representative democracy should be enacted on a state level.
ReplyDelete-RG
I disagree with direct democracy with citizens that are on the basis of voting about the issues that is affecting the budget have no idea on how it would affect the state of California. Majority of people that lives i California wants to vote on lowering taxes, and get money to pay for things that are more important for the state such as; good school for their children and better public transportation and other services that need helps. "tyranny of the Majority plays a big role in this also, because it affects everyone in California and how it will benefit them into making the state a better place to live.
ReplyDeleteS.D
Direct democracy is best for when people want to get together and voice an issue together as a union. It is best under circumstances such as taxes or anything that helps to preserve a citizens capital. Unfortunately, representative democracy is what is present currently. The representatives will decide for the people. That is the way it will be because that is the type of system that is operating right now. There is not much a plebeian or commoner can do. They can vote and hold a picket sign protesting but at the end of the end of the day the final decision goes to the people in office who have more expertise and power. Direct Democracy best serves the public's interest when it relates to an issue such as marijuana. Direct democracy is very limited and practically non-existent.
ReplyDeleteC.A
I believe that direct democracy is a good idea in theory but it does not work out, i.e. California. So I really do not believe it is realistic because there is not enough knowledge on the public's side that will allow for the states to not screw up with their budgets. I think that representative democracy works better because these are the people who have spent years learning the ins and outs of government and policy so I think that it is fair and the right move to put our trust in our representatives.
ReplyDeleteP.M.
Direct democracy best serve the public interest when things that go on in society is on a personal level,such as,education, organizations for society, such as the YMCA or plant parenthood. Things that have to do with state law and budgeting shouldn't not be left to the people. Although there could be more meetings,so that people can talk about what's going on, how to fix a problem that's going on in the state.
ReplyDeleteThe people should be able to control the education. Such as what they learn and what they shouldn't learn. The people should be able to control Planned Parenthood. No government or President should be able to tell your child that they can't have an abortion or they won't give them contraceptions. That is too personal for the state or federal level, it's called parenting. For the state of federal level to step in they would be completely out of line it's not there place.
-TRW
According to sources, in a direct democracy all citizens must meet together and make decisions via a vote. In a Represenataive Democracy citizens elect leaders who make decisions on their behalf . In a Representative Democracy it is normally people chosen through elections that maintains the authority. I have read that representative democracy usually suffers because of voter apathy (lack of interest) which in turn often means it is not even a majority who chose a government. However, Direct democracy promotes responsiveness and is best used when people want to get together and voice their concerns together. but on the other hand lacks public interests. There are many pros and cons for Representative Democracy and Direct Democracy.
ReplyDeleteA direct democracy can be used effectively in some circumstances. This lets the people make their decisions that can directly impact them. The people speak for themselves to a certain extent and can make change. Unfortunately, the reverse affect of that can be giving the people too much power, and putting them in positions they may not be comfortable in or lack experience. A voted representative, as stated in the article, provides the expertise and wisdom needed to be a leader. This can be someone who is conditioned to make pressure situations on a regular basis and can help maintain agreeable policies.
ReplyDeleteJS
I have to agree with the Governator it is no way to run the state. I've heard it said a few times before the people don't know what they want. As ideal as their wishes may be it is not realistic to spend little money and receive outstanding services. You get what you pay for nothing more.The entire reason a Governor is elected is because the people chose him or her to represent them giving the governor responsibility. However, the idea of direct democracy may boost the hope in people that their votes do matter and this could draw a larger voting population.so as with everything there are pros and cons, but I think this method is a mistake. -TR
ReplyDeleteThe average person is too consumed with his or her own life to be thinking about others. This is the main reason as to why we need republicans and democrats to run our governments. People who put themselves up for election not only have an interest and the talent as well as the skills to fulfill the office he/she seeks. Have a group of people representing the whole and their interests is what works best for everyone.
ReplyDeleteLet’s face it, the average citizen does not vote and hold their side of good citizenship responsibilities. Unfortunately, people have the attitude that it is never their problem until it knocks on their door. The republican and democratic governments consist of those who believe they can make a difference in everyone’s lives. They also know that in order for one person to benefit, all must make some sort of sacrifice. They know everyone must be held accountable and do their fair share of work. In order for government to be affective. For example, the U/S/ government has many leaders who are experts in the field’s they serve. --SF
I have never been a big fan of Direct Democracy. In hindsight it sounds amazing, "The people have the power." etc. Sure it sounds exciting but practical, I don't think so.
ReplyDelete“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”- Sir John Dalberg-Acton
There is such a thin line between direct democracy and Tyranny of the Majority. We just can't decide on matters based off of what the majority of the people think is right. We all have opinions and ideas and through a direct democracy, not all our ideas are taken into consideration. Some get drowned in the overwhelming sea that is the idea that the majority likes.
The best example I believe of why direct democracy isn't the most ideal form of government is when Jesus of Nazarene was crucified.
I'm not brining religion into this topic without relevancy. Before Jesus was set to be crucified, Pontius Pilate asked the people who they wanted freed, Jesus or Barabas. And the resounding answer was Barabas. Now was this man innocent and worthy of freedom? Was Jesus truly that much of a criminal that these people saw it right to have him crucified? Who really knows.
What I do know is that Pontius Pilate had all the power to decide and perhaps think about the situation before coming to a definite conclusion. But instead he gave all that power to the people. And who's to say there weren’t people there who were actually against Barabas being freed, people he have hurt one way or the other. But of course their pleas would not be heard since the majority has already voted and their voices were much louder collectively and so their word became law. And with that decision, Pontius Pilate proceeds to wash his hands to symbolically relieve himself of all responsibility of Jesus’ fate.
If California does not change the way they govern their people, their people will end up governing them. And without a proper system produced by experts/professionals, the entire State of California will end up being a colossal bargain bin where people ask for the best services for the lowest prices.
If this continues, California may as well be America’s Pontius Pilate.
-J.Mo
Ballot-box budgeting is refer to the process of making decisions about government budgets through direct democracy. Currently the state of California is in a fallout economic due to the process of which decision are being taken. Ballot-box budgeting leaves them very little flexibility to deal with shifting economic conditions. California voters are asked to approve outlays for emotionally resonant issues mental-health treatment, school improvements, funding children’s hospitals and time and again, they sign off. But the right to vote on an issue is always untethered from any notion of fiscal responsibility. In most cases, voters aren’t required to find a funding mechanism, whether in the form of spending cuts or tax hikes. They’re simply asked if they’d like to be charitable on someone else’s dime. The result is the unsustainable mix of opposition to tax hikes and enthusiasm for new spending projects that has put the state in its current fiscal morass.
ReplyDeleteM.E.