Direct Democracy Giving the People a Voice in the Federal

Government

Keith Rakes

5/6/2014

POSC 498

As the political parties have placed themselves in a gridlock, the idea of direct democracy has

gain a strong footing. By allowing the citizens to initiate, and refer bills to congress and vote on

legislation, the political gridlock will break, and the country will run smoothly. This essay will

focus on why the federal government should institute direct democracy, and allow its citizens a

voice on what legislation gets passed and which one’s fails. It will look at many different

perspectives ranging from political knowledge to economics, and how the individual states have

fared successfully with direct democracy.

2

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, President Bush initiated the War on Terror

against al Qaeda, which led to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Congress, following the president’s

lead, allowed for massive unchecked spending for the war. Additionally, the country was

experiencing an economic boom due to minimum to no federal regulations of the banking

industry. Yet the economy turned, driving the country into a deep recession in 2007. During all

this, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq continued forcing the federal government to borrow

money just to pay bills, something it’s continuing to do today. This has also caused the country

to raise its debt ceiling. Now under President Obama, the wars are subsiding, and the economy’s

improving, but Washington politics have gridlocked. Both Democrats and Republicans are not

compromising on proposed bills, and some Republicans who are endorsed by the Tea Party, a

powerful grass roots organization, are not compromising with anyone. This has led for some to

believe that direct democracy should be installed in the federal government.

Direct democracy is a very unique style of government. There are three things that go

into it: initiatives, referendums, and recalls. Initiatives are proposals that are placed on a ballot by

the people and if enough vote for it, it becomes a law. Referendums are laws that can be struck

down by the people if they are placed on a ballot. A statutory referendum “involves the

acceptance or rejection of a statute enacted by the state legislature or ordinance or other local law

enacted by a local governing body” (Zimmerman, 2001, 7). Finally, recalls happen when the

people want to remove a person from office. This type of government is in place in many states

in the union, and around the world, and is very successful. As recent polls have shown a drop in

voter participation (probably for many reasons, but a clear one is most likely frustration). By

having direct democracy in the federal government, it should alleviate this issue and break the

political gridlock. In sum, initiating direct democracy in the United States federal government

3

will increase the confidence of the citizens and allows them a greater voice in public policy

issues.

Before the idea of direct democracy can be initiated, one must look at why the system

became the way it is today. After the founding of the country on July 4, 1776, the Continental

Congress instituted the Articles of Confederation which created a weak federal government and

powerful state governments. By the mid 1780’s, it was very evident, that the Articles was not

working, and for the country to survive and prosper, a much stronger central government was

needed. This was achieved in the ratification of the US Constitution in 1789. Since those early

years of the republic, the country was seriously divided (free Northern states and slave-holding

Southern states), went through a devastating civil war, and became a global power following

World War II. Yet by the 2000’s, the federal government had become a shell of what it used to

be.

In the 2000’s, the US Congress has been in a sad state of affairs. Many people have

complained about the out of control spending, lack of checks and balances, and raising the debt

ceiling so the country can continue borrowing money to pay its bills. To add to this, the country

was in the process of coming out of the 2007-2008 recession, high national unemployment (10

percent), and fighting two wars, something that the country could not afford to do. This all came

to ahead with the government shutdown of 2013. It was this that many people lost confidence

with the federal government. A way that the country could reassess itself, and regain the

confidence of the people is instituting direct democracy at the federal level. As more than half

the states in the union use this style of government successfully, it should not be that difficult to

do.

4

In the United States, direct democracy is only used at the state and local level. At the

federal level, it does not exist due to James Madison insistence that a government run “by the

people” would be dangerous. He clearly states that in Federalist #10 “A common passion or

interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and

concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements

to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual” (Madison, 1787, 4). For many years,

states that entered the union did not have direct democracy until the late nineteenth century. Yet,

direct democracy has gained popularity in the US since the turn of the twentieth century.

As the calendar was turning into the twentieth century, the country was going through a

moral change brought on by the progressive movement. The progressives wanted more rights to

workers and more power to the citizens when it came to government laws. As many western

territories were becoming states, they (the state representatives) wanted their citizens involved

via referendums, or initiatives. “Most state constitutions require a referendum for Constitutional

amendments and for legislation in certain areas, such as chartering a new city, expanding

suffrage, exceeding the debt limit or changing the location of the state capitol” (Persily, 1997,

13). Even though North Dakota was the first state to grant its citizens the right to post initiatives

on their ballots, it wouldn’t be until the early twentieth century that direct democracy would take

a hold in the western states.

Today twenty-four states, from Alaska to Maine, and practically the entire West currently

use the initiative, and some states in the Eastern US use referendums or recalls only (Maine,

Massachusetts, and Florida) making twenty-seven states total. “One of the most stunning

developments in direct democracy has been the citizen-initiated measures beginning in the late

1970’s” (Matsusaka, 2005, 189). During that time, many people wanted more control of their

5

government (seeing that the country was in an economic crisis at the time). As many people in

the US use direct democracy for state and local concerns, it has also grown in other places

around the world, and none more so than in Switzerland.

Switzerland has historically been using direct democracy for hundreds of years.

Compared to other countries in the world, the Swiss thinks highly of it. In a study of direct

democracy around the world by Todd Donovan and Jeffrey A. Karp in 2003, they clearly state

that “apart from California, Switzerland makes greater use of citizen-initiated referendums than

any other major polity” (Donovan and Karp, 2006, 676). Their study showed that 64.8 percent

felt that direct democracy was very important. Yet they showed that some people in Switzerland

were dissatisfied with direct democracy and took no part (this could be for many different

reasons from not having political knowledge, education level, or simply having no interest in

political activity).Yet, Switzerland’s direct democracy is a perfect example of how the US

federal government should be if it’s instituted. Actually, one state the federal government can

look at that uses direct democracy is California.

The state of California is the most populous state in the union and has a complex

governmental system, much like the federal government. But, it differs on one thing: it has direct

democracy. “California counties were given initiative rights in 1893, and the first cities to adopt

the initiative were San Francisco and Vallejo in 1898” (Matsusaka, 2005, 189). By the 1970’s,

California was known for using initiatives and referendums broadly during election season. In a

1982 study, polls showed that:

Two-thirds of the California voters felt that elected representatives

were better suited to decide highly technical or legal policy

matters… A majority 51 percent of these same California voters,

however, indicated that the voting public was better suited to

decide upon large-scale government programs and projects. Even

6

larger proportions trusted the voting public to do what was right on

important government issues. (Magleby, 1984, 9)

Today, No other state uses direct democracy more so than in California. Yet, many other

states also use it to push laws through. Many people have strong beliefs on why direct

democracy will work at the federal level, and mainly focus on citizen political participation,

political knowledge, minority’s involvement, money, and interest groups.

In direct democracy, the key part is citizen participation. Without it, it will not work.

Since the US currently has a fairly low voter turnout for national elections, direct democracy

would improve that. “Today’s reformers back less hierarchical governmental organizations (what

the progressives wanted) to increase citizen participation in policy-making and enhance

government responsiveness to citizen demands…that strengthening relations between citizens

and policy-makers will improve policy-making and is, therefore, a core element of good

governance” (Tolbert, McNeal, and Smith, 2003, 24). Carolyn Tolbert, Ramona McNeal and

Daniel A. Smith’s study in 2001 “suggests that ballot initiatives may be particularly effective in

stimulating political interest in midterm elections when issue campaigns do not compete with

presidential races, and in non-competitive, low-turnout presidential elections, such as in 1996”

(Tolbert, McNeal, and Smith, 2003, 29). Yet the idea of national direct democracy raises many

questions which were somewhat answered in a 2012 symposium.

In 2012, Tom Pryor took part in the Minnesota Law Review symposium at the University

of Minnesota at Minneapolis. He led two panels on if direct democracy could make the country a

more perfect union. Professors Mathew McCubbins and Craig Burnett of the University of

Southern California believed that “in a sense, many voters may lack the information and skills to

“vote correctly”” (Pryor, 2013, 1550). Professor Ethan Leib of Fordham Law argued further,

“citizens’ casting votes in direct democracy contests, like elected representatives casting roll call

7

votes, must make a sincere effort to vote in a way that would pursue the public interest” (Pryor,

2013, 1551). In addition to civic involvement of citizens, another part of this is political

knowledge and are the people competent in voting on initiatives and referendums? “Many people

believe that ordinary citizens are incompetent because they base their political choices on limited

factual foundations” (Lupia and Matsusaka, 2004, 467). Yet this could be very misleading, in

that a study conducted in 1994 by Arthur Lupia, Center for Political Science at the University of

Michigan suggests that citizen voters take an active political role when voting on ballot

propositions and considered themselves as “model citizens” (Lupia and Matsusaka, 2004, 468).

As many people consider themselves model citizens, another issue that has been studied is the

extent of minority’s in direct democracy’s usage.

The United States is made up of many different cultures and people. To that, there are

many different minority groups that impact direct democracy at the state and local level. Many

studies have shown that as direct democracy is favored by the country as a whole, the minority

groups have different feelings. Some believe that the “initiative process, combined with high

racial and ethnic diversity in some American states, has fuelled a white backlash or ‘new

populism’ where ballot initiatives are used to circumvent state legislatures where minority

groups have representation” (Cain, 1992; Hero, 1998; Tolbert and Smith, 2006, 30). Yet some

scholars have discovered that this only happens rarely, and that “there is no consensus among

scholars as to whether minority rights are compromised in actual ballot outcomes” (Tolbert and

Smith, 2006, 30). Additionally, when comparing those living in geographic areas (urban and

rural), “rural voters were suppressed in statewide ballot contests in the 1990’s having to do with

animal rights and wildlife protection issues” (Tolbert and Smith, 2006, 31-32). With a country as

vast as the United States, geography will play a key role when it comes to direct democracy at

8

the federal level. As the states have proven, as long as people get to the ballot box to vote, there

should not be any issues whatsoever, and maintaining equal treatment in direct democracy

should not be a problem.

As direct democracy dictates, the people have a real strong voice when it comes to voting

on initiatives and referendums. Yet, this voice must have some form of equality at the national

level. “Sometimes direct democracy is crucial to protecting individual freedoms in the face of

abuses perpetrated by representative democracy” (Connerly, 2009, 105). To this, legal motion

has to be set when concerning equal rights legislation (still an area of concern in the federal

government). Three states: “California, Michigan and Washington—have determined that the

issue of racial distinctions is of sufficient importance to the relationship between citizens and the

government that they forbid government agencies from making such distinctions (Connerly,

2009, 109). Recently though, “representative government at all levels has become totally

unresponsive to the people” (Connerly, 2009, 111-112) giving more leverage on allowing direct

democracy in the federal government. Along with running any style of government, having, and

using money to run a direct democracy is also crucial for it to be a success.

In running a government, or any national or international organization, money is very

crucial in having it run successfully. The same thing can be said for direct democracy initiatives

and referendums. According to Arthur Lupia and John Matsusaka, “when it comes to direct

democracy, the concern is that wealthy interests “buy” legislation directly by placing measures

on the ballot and campaigning for their approval” (Lupia and Matsusaka, 2004, 470). This should

not be a concern due to the people voting whichever way they please (and voting intimidation is

illegal). Currently, there is no regulation on how much money can be spent to place a proposal

on a ballot. “In 1998, for example, nearly $400 million was spent by ballot-issue committees

9

nationwide to support or oppose 61 initiatives and dozens more referendums” (Tolbert and

Smith, 2006, 34). It has been proven that money can be very influential when it comes to direct

democracy at the state level. At the federal level (much like all levels of government) interest

groups also have a say when it comes to initiatives and referendums.

In representative democracies, interest groups play a large role in “helping” to get

legislation passed. This is also true with direct democracy at the local and state levels. In 2004,

“gambling interests spent $90 million in California on two propositions alone” (Matsusaka,

2005, 191), while presidential hopefuls spent far less on their campaigns. It also has to do with

those who support and want to defeat propositions. “Labor Unions in California and Oregon

spent more than $40 million to defeat various ballot issues, with over $75 million spent

nationally between 1994 and 2000 to defeat conservative ballot propositions” (Tolbert and

Smith, 2006, 35). As these interest groups will have a large effect on direct democracy

initiatives, the process still relies on the people to make it work, which clearly showed when the

people of various states added the initiative of same sex marriage in 2004.

In the United States, same sex marriage is a very sensitive issue to the people, and the

political system. The federal government passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996.

So it was quite natural for states with direct democracy to allow the initiatives of same sex

marriage. Initially, in 2004, thirteen states placed initiatives or referendums on their ballots

banning the controversial measure. “Every measured passed, receiving 70 percent support on

average” (Tolbert and Smith, 2006, 35). As the years passed, the people’s thoughts changed,

believing that when it comes to love, the freedom of choice is more important than what the

politicians think. Today there is a patchwork of sixteen states and the District of Columbia,

stretching from Washington to Maine (and most of New England) that grants same sex marriage

10

licenses (Inga, 2014, 1172). As the people voted to either ban or make legal same sex marriages,

the legalization of marijuana was also resolved by use of direct democracy.

Even though same sex marriage is receiving more positive attention, the legalization of

marijuana has been much more complicated. Accordingly, the federal government has been very

reluctant on legalizing the drug, making it still an illegal substance. This has led to the states

deciding on whether to legalize it on their own or not. Within the last couple of years, two states

that use direct democracy legalized its usage for recreational purposes: Colorado and

Washington. They joined with twenty other states and the District of Columbia which have

legalized the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes only (Tutro, 2013, 234). Even though the

citizens wanted this to happen (federal employees are not allowed to use it), the main reasons

why these states wanted to legalize it was for taxes. This will likely forced the federal

governments hand in legalizing it for the entire country, but that remains to be seen. A possible

concern in the future is the effect the citizens will have on public policy at the national level.

For citizens to be involved in a direct democracy, they must take part in public policy, but

how big of an effect will direct democracy have on public policy? Even as citizens generally tend

to be either conservative or liberal, “It is easy to find examples of particular initiatives that

promote liberal causes, such as funding for mass transit, but statistical evidence shows that… the

initiative has tended to bring out more fiscally and socially conservative policies” (Lupia and

Matsusaka, 2004, 474). As both liberal and conservative policies are affected by direct

democracy initiatives, the implementation of the policies will be fairly easy. As citizen-

legislatures, “in direct democracy campaigns should observe similar moral duties” (Pryor, 2013,

1551) as much as their elected representatives. The biggest issue the country is facing is political

gridlock between the two parties, and instituting direct democracy will help in eliminating that.

11

Lately, the political parties have been in a state of gridlock, and direct democracy will

help resolve this. By having federal legislation placed on ballots to be voted on, they will decide

if the law is deemed necessary. Additionally, citizens can place federal initiatives if they feel it’s

important for the country’s future. “If the will of the people is sovereign in a constitutional

republic, then voters should not be able to bind or burden future generations with laws and

policies that are not equally binding on the present generation” (Pryor, 2013, 1555). By having

the people decide on which bills become law (before the president signs them), this will easily

break the political gridlock in Washington D.C. It is also worth noting that those living in a

direct democracy, much like those living in Swiss cantons experience “higher levels of

“happiness”” (Matsusaka, 2005, 201) than those who do not. Economically, “economists are

more inclined to ascribe rationality to voters” (Matsusaka, 2005, 203) when it comes to direct

democracy. By adding direct democracy in the federal government, the citizens can decide

what’s best for the country.

To conclude, direct democracy instituted at the federal level can easily improve voter

participation and end the gridlock of the political parties in Washington D.C. It has successfully

been proven to work at the state and local levels of government. As the citizens of the country

have grown tired of the political gridlock, extensive borrowing to pay bills and loans, and

uncontrolled spending, the idea of direct democracy becoming a part of the federal government

makes sense. Even though it might be considered a financial burden if it is started, it should not

be that serious of an issue. The citizens will do their part in initiating and referring bills or laws

for votes. It will have to take a constitutional amendment if it’s ever brought up in Congress, but

a country of the people, by the people, and for the people, should let the people have a voice in

what bills are initiated and referred by the government.

12

Bibliography

Connerly, Ward. 2009. “Achieving Equal Treatment through the Ballot Box” Harvard Journal of

Law & Public Policy 32, no. 1: 105-112.

Donovan, Todd and Karp, Jeffrey. 2006. “Popular Support for Direct Democracy”, Sage

Journals Party Politics vol.12 no.5: 671-688

http://ppq.sagepub.com/content/12/5/671.short via Google Scholar (accessed April 30,

2014).

Lupia, Arthur, and John G. Matsusaka. (2004). “Direct Democracy: New Approaches to Old

Questions.” Annual Review of Political Science 7, no. 1: 463-482.

Magleby, David B. 1984. Direct Legislation: Voting on Ballot Propositions in the United States,

Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Madison, James. 1787. “Federalist Paper #10”.

Matsusaka, John. 2004. “Direct Democracy”, Encyclopedia of Public Choice: 1-9

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-0-306-47828-4_75#page-1 via Google

Scholar (accessed April 23, 2014).

Matsusaka, John. 2005. “Direct Democracy Works”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 19

number 2: 185-206.

Nelson, Inga. 2013. “Recognition of Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships as Marriages in

Same-Sex Marriage States.” Minnesota Law Review 98, no. 3 (February 2014): 1171-

1209.

13

Persily, Nathaniel. 1997. “The Peculiar Geography of Direct Democracy: Why the Initiative,

Referendum and Recall Developed in the American West”, Mich. L and Policy Review:

11- 41

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/mlpr2&div=6&id=&page

= Google Scholar (accessed April 28, 2014).

Pryor, Tom. 2013. “A More Perfect Union? Democracy in the Age of Ballot Initiatives.”

Minnesota Law Review 97, no. 5: 1549-1556.

Tolbert, Caroline J., Ramona S. McNeal, and Daniel A. Smith. 2003. "Enhancing Civic

Engagement: The Effect of Direct Democracy on Political Participation and Knowledge."

State Politics & Policy Quarterly 3, no. 1: 23.

Tolbert, Caroline, and Daniel Smith. 2006. “Representation and Direct Democracy in the United

States.” Representation 42, no. 1: 25-44.

Tutro, Joseph. 2013. “States are Making their Own Decisions Regarding Whether Marijuana

Should be Illegal: How Should the Federal Government React?” Tennessee Journal Of

Law & Policy 9, no. 2. 233-247.

Zimmerman, Joseph, F. 2001. The Referendum: The People Decide Public Policy. Westport, CT:

Praeger Publishers.

14