Beginning
before the 2012 election, I have published a series of Ethical Musings posts on
politics (these link to parts 1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
and 7),
considered whether Jesus
was a politician, discussed the campaign (these links to parts 1, 2, 3,
and 4),
and the role and influence of campaign
contributions.
Two
threads, woven through those posts, are a commitment to democracy and a concern
that people in the United States (and perhaps in other democracies) increasingly
feel less ownership of their government, i.e., We the people have become They
the government.
Thus,
I read with considerable interest an excerpt from Jack N. Rakove's The
Annotated U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence (Cambridge, MA:
Belknap Harvard, 2009). Following the first census in 1790, the U.S. House of
Representatives expanded to 105 members, each representing about 33,000 inhabitants
as specified in the Constitution for apportionment purposes, i.e., slaves
counted as only three-fifths of an inhabitant.
By
Rakove's calculations using data from the 2000 census, the House of
Representatives would need 9,380 members to maintain the same ratio of
representatives to inhabitants as in 1790, ignoring the skewing attributable to
not counting slaves as people. (p. 112) Instead, the 435 members of the House
of Representatives each, on average, represent 646,952 people, almost twenty
times as many constituents as their predecessors from two centuries earlier
did.
No
deliberative body could function well with almost 10,000 members. Conversely, some
measure of the alienation that many citizens feel toward Washington, the
constant need for raising money to fund election campaigns, the constantly expanding
size and influence of Congressional staffs, and the influence of large donors have
all, to some degree, been caused by the huge increase in the number of people
each member of the House represents.
Perhaps
the United States (and other large democracies) should consider complementing
representative democracy with direct democracy. Direct democracy – citizens
voting directly on an issue, as in the case of a referendum – was not an option
in the eighteenth century, but it is today, with the advent of the internet
era.
Direct
democracy offers at least three potential advantages but comes at a price.
First, direct democracy may reverse the growing alienation that many feel
toward the government by affording people a personal say on important issues.
Direct democracy truly gives power to the people.
Second,
direct democracy may prove an easier way to rebalance power within the nation
than amending the Constitution to change the Senate so that not every state
automatically has two senators. This provision was important for the founders,
among whom loyalty to their state (or commonwealth) sometimes exceeded loyalty
to the nation. Post-Civil War, few Americans order their loyalties that way; an
overwhelming majority of citizens is primarily loyal to the nation; loyalty to
a state tends to be minimal. However, small states this anachronistic provision
allows small states to wield disproportionate influence in national affairs, an
affect that direct democracy would to some degree nullify.
Third,
direct democracy might prove a way to break the logjams (e.g., caused by
political polarization) that blocks Congressional action on issues ranging from
the budget (the U.S. has not had a budget in four years) to gun control (which polls
repeatedly show that a preponderance of citizens support).
The
price of direct democracy can be measured in both dollars (this includes all
costs associated with voting) and in a potentially ill-informed or uninformed
electorate making decisions. Of course, one can make the same observation about
the votes of members of Congress who prioritize electioneering and fund raising
over legislative business.
Direct
democracy is no panacea. National votes are not suitable for complex issues
(e.g., the national budget); no process exists for amending proposals as part
of a referendum; discussion and compromise consequently are problematic.
Nevertheless, perhaps direct democracy is an idea worth considering.
No comments:
Post a Comment