I think Brexit can also be seen as an argument for more direct democracy: if there had been a referendum in the UK on one or more of the major changes in the EU treaties in the previous 25 years, I think it's likely that Brexit wouldn't have happened, or else that it would have happened much earlier with less damage as a result.
Speaking as a Californian, where our ballot is always filled with propositions [1] [2], I can confidently say this is a bad idea. I think it works tolerably well for issues that are something an average citizen can understand with a little research, but otherwise just ends up as dueling propaganda campaigns.
For example, this year San Francisco voted to decide whether one of the major streets through Golden Gate Park should remain mostly car free after we tried that for the pandemic. That seems like a fine use. But there was a state prop titled "REQUIRES ON-SITE LICENSED MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL AT KIDNEY DIALYSIS CLINICS AND ESTABLISHES OTHER STATE REQUIREMENTS. INITIATIVE STATUTE." This was some sort of high-dollar fight among vested interests fought via sketchy ballot proposition and it absolutely should not have been on the ballot.
(You also can quickly run into tyranny-of-the-majority issues. E.g., famously liberal and tolerant California in 2008 voted to strip an already-existing civil right from a minority. [3])
For complex issues, I think it's better to have the decision-making concentrated in the hands of highly supervised professionals with staffs who have the time to understand the issues enough so that they have a chance of understanding the impacts. Rather than more direct democracy, what I'd like to see is more transparency and accountability for those professionals.
Brexit wasn't based on actual harm caused by EU treaties. It was caused by bigotry, fear over economic issues being very deliberately misdirected due to propaganda, and a host of outright lies on the part of the Leave campaign.
I wish I could have this level of optimism. If US voters actually wanted all of these things, there is absolutely no way that the margins in congress would be as razor thin as they are, gerrymandering or not.
That would be great, but it assumes that there wouldn't (continue to) be massive voter suppression by the right wing, guaranteeing that their pet issues win in most of the south and midwest.
The result of Brexit referenda can be attributed to caging away citizens from a democratic decision-making process on the things that matter. It was a vote of contempt not on the matter. If more referenda were held, the contempt for the lack of democracy would fade away as it's in Switzerland.
>The result of Brexit referenda can be attributed to caging away citizens from a democratic decision-making process on the things that matter.
To be fair, the EU is partially responsible for that. Even if the UK had a form of direct democracy, EU rules would still dictate on many issues. Switzerland can only do what it does because it isn't part of the EU.
(Now, if the EU itself had a direct democracy (setting aside the practical issues with that) it would perhaps be different.)
You can't judge the outcome of elections by standards under which they were not held. Popular-vote-wins would result in very different campaign efforts, and different voting patterns.
It's like holding a baseball game and then, after the fact, declaring that the winner isn't the team with the most runs, but the one that got the most hits. Sure there's some correlation there, but both teams would have played differently if they'd known that's how they'd be judged, so you can't be sure who would have won if they'd known that's how they were supposed to be playing.
mjw1007|3 years ago
wpietri|3 years ago
For example, this year San Francisco voted to decide whether one of the major streets through Golden Gate Park should remain mostly car free after we tried that for the pandemic. That seems like a fine use. But there was a state prop titled "REQUIRES ON-SITE LICENSED MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL AT KIDNEY DIALYSIS CLINICS AND ESTABLISHES OTHER STATE REQUIREMENTS. INITIATIVE STATUTE." This was some sort of high-dollar fight among vested interests fought via sketchy ballot proposition and it absolutely should not have been on the ballot.
(You also can quickly run into tyranny-of-the-majority issues. E.g., famously liberal and tolerant California in 2008 voted to strip an already-existing civil right from a minority. [3])
For complex issues, I think it's better to have the decision-making concentrated in the hands of highly supervised professionals with staffs who have the time to understand the issues enough so that they have a chance of understanding the impacts. Rather than more direct democracy, what I'd like to see is more transparency and accountability for those professionals.
[1] In our most recent election we had 7 state propositions: https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/qualified-b...
[2] And 15 local ones: https://voterguide.sfelections.org/en/local-ballot-measure-a...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8
danaris|3 years ago
hedora|3 years ago
- rapid action on climate change
- legalized abortion
- universal health care
- right to privacy
- improved internet access
- cleaner water + food
- bank reform
- DACA
- Social Security funding (returning funds stolen by previous congresses)
Heck, we might even go completely nuts and actually finish banning slavery.
Not sure what would happen in year two.
0xffff2|3 years ago
danaris|3 years ago
bcrosby95|3 years ago
Heck, a county voted to split from California. That won't happen though.
HDThoreaun|3 years ago
JanisErdmanis|3 years ago
RobotToaster|3 years ago
To be fair, the EU is partially responsible for that. Even if the UK had a form of direct democracy, EU rules would still dictate on many issues. Switzerland can only do what it does because it isn't part of the EU.
(Now, if the EU itself had a direct democracy (setting aside the practical issues with that) it would perhaps be different.)
brewdad|3 years ago
kjkjadksj|3 years ago
[deleted]
yamtaddle|3 years ago
It's like holding a baseball game and then, after the fact, declaring that the winner isn't the team with the most runs, but the one that got the most hits. Sure there's some correlation there, but both teams would have played differently if they'd known that's how they'd be judged, so you can't be sure who would have won if they'd known that's how they were supposed to be playing.