Representative Democracy vs. Direct Democracy

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Direct Democracy - The Antidote to Representative Democracy's Ills

Representative Democracy as I'm arguing is flawed in numerous ways. By this I mean, it doesn't do what it's set out to; to represent the public with a parliament, or congress. I'm arguing that it holds a number of large flaws. Because Representative Democracy is flawed, both inherently and in practice, I'm arguing that a Direct Democracy is more appropriate for the times.

Representative Democracy is where a ruling body is elected with the responsibility of acting in the public's interest. This is often in the form of a parliament, or congress, seen in the USA and the UK. This elected body is supposed to represent the public's interest, and have enough power and authority to exercise initiative in the face of rapidly changing circumstances. It also is meant to represent the public, and the majority of voters, like all democracy.

Representative Democracy attempts to achieve this, by dividing the public into a number of electorates or districts, and these electorates elect a member to represent that electorate or. In a two house system, this is often the lower house, the upper house, is likely to be elected proportionally, and represents the states equally (at least in the case of the USA, and for the most part, Australia).

This is flawed for a number of reasons. These include: the possibility of electing a candidate/government, that didn't win a majority, the unaccountability of the ruling body once elected, unequal representation and vested interests.

Firstly, with plurality voting, it is possible for an electorate to elect a candidate, that didn't even win a majority in that seat. This means that, said candidate is only representing a small portion of that electorate. Preferential voting can lead to the same conclusion, and may result in the winner not even holding the highest primary vote. This can lead to a government that was not elected by a majority of voters. This is a rather undemocratic outcome. This isn't the case with Proportional Representation, however it has it's own set of problems. Proportional representation, is unlikely to yield a definitive result, if there are minor parties involved. This leads to an unstable government. If there are only two parties, that produces another set of problems, which I'll get to later.

Secondly, once the ruling body is elected, what's to say that the ruling body will act in the public's interest between elections? Only the threat of being kicked out of office, yet it is still imperfect, because during election year, everything changes, the candidates make promises, and pretend to represent the public, but what's to say that the candidates not lying, just to get into office? This means ruling body is unaccountable during it's ruling term.

Unequal representation is a problem of fairness for representative democracies. Simply put, the electorates are never equal in size, and some people get more power than others due to this fact. Whether done deliberately as an attempt at electoral fraud, or just a fact of life, it means that a voter in one electorate, will have a different amount of power than another.

Politicians always seem to have some kind of vested interest. That's the reason for campaign donations from large companies or lobby groups. The companies seem to buy representation and leave the voters without representation. Media companies are especially powerful, and can sway voters easily, so politicians will always want to be on their side.

As Representative Democracy is flawed, another system of Democracy is more appropriate. Direct Democracy is a better system.

Direct Democracy is where the public is allowed to vote on whether a bill is passed, and other decisions. It doesn't have many of the flaws representative democracy has, and is in my opinion a superior system.

It is simply impossible for a bill to be passed unless there is a majority in favour of it, and this represents the populace more effectively, in a direct democracy, assuming compulsory voting. If this isn't the case, it is still possible for a bill to be passed without a majority though.

The ruling body is not very powerful and always needs public support to make decisions, and it therefore cannot become unaccountable.

Unequal representation is less of a problem for a direct democracy, because for the most part the total number of voters in favour or against a proposal is all that matters. The election of the ruling body, is comparatively a minor affair.

The vested interests of the politicians, are less important with a direct democracy, because it is the public opinion that is important. No longer can companies easily steal representation from the voters, because the voters are involved in the decision making process.

In comparison, direct democracy has far fewer problems than representative democracy, and that is why it is a superior system.

 

[Jam Stunna]

My problem with direct democracy is that, like all political systems, unfettered democracy is terrifying in its potential for abuse. Proposition 8 in California is a result of direct democracy. There needs to be some system where the "tyranny of the masses" is restrained, and while representative democracy isn't perfect, it does that job fairly well.

Also, I don't agree that direct democracy represents the people better, not as long as states still exist. Right now, California and Rhode Island get the same power in the Senate; under direct voting, California has twice as much power as all of New England combined. Nine states account for over half of the US population, and the power that direct voting will accord to those states in a federal system can be harnessed to the detriment of the other states.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

My problem with direct democracy is that, like all political systems, unfettered democracy is terrifying in its potential for abuse. Proposition 8 in California is a result of direct democracy. There needs to be some system where the "tyranny of the masses" is restrained, and while representative democracy isn't perfect, it does that job fairly well.

I understand, the Tyranny of the masses, problem is a large one. However, it is in some sense fair. 1 person, 1 vote, everyone has an equal amount of power.

Also, I don't agree that direct democracy represents the people better, not as long as states still exist. Right now, California and Rhode Island get the same power in the Senate; under direct voting, California has twice as much power as all of New England combined. Nine states account for over half of the US population, and the power that direct voting will accord to those states in a federal system can be harnessed to the detriment of the other states.

Well, but isn't that fair? These states deserve a larger say in the political process because they have more people. The smaller states shouldn't have the same level of power, because it isn't fair on the people in the large states. Heck, if worst comes to worst, can't we just abolish the states?

 

[Jam Stunna]

So might makes right? Discrimination becomes fair if a majority of people want to discriminate?

 

[Aesir]

I understand, the Tyranny of the masses, problem is a large one. However, it is in some sense fair. 1 person, 1 vote, everyone has an equal amount of power.

As Jam pointed out, is it fair that a majority of ignorant voters can take away your rights? Or limit them in some fashion?

If civil rights were dependent on direct democracy, blacks probably still wouldn't have the right to vote. But I guess that's fair.

Well, but isn't that fair? These states deserve a larger say in the political process because they have more people. The smaller states shouldn't have the same level of power, because it isn't fair on the people in the large states. Heck, if worst comes to worst, can't we just abolish the states?

They get that representation in the house, the senate is designed to protect smaller states from larger states with a run away majority.

You can't just abolish the states, once you're in the union you're in it for life.

 

[manhunter098]

I have to say that it would be rather difficult to create any consistent organization in the political structure if we were a direct democracy. For a political system to even work it needs to have elites, ideally our vote holds those elites responsible since we can vote them out of office.

There could be something of a middle ground, not quite like California, constitutional referendums and the like are incredibly foolhardy, people being able to petition for and vote on some amount of legislative material though, I feel would be very healthy for a democracy. As legislation of course it would be subject to constitutional limitations. That said in order for any democracy to be essential the government must be true to its constitution, and its constitution needs to strongly protect civil rights. Regardless of what we do though, all forms of government are going to be imposing the will of one person (or many, or the majority, etc) on another group of people to some degree.

I think its obvious that we come some serious problems in Washington, I don't believe many of the leaders that founded any nation knew much about how the political structure of representative systems actually worked. Good ideals are very well, and they will get us very far, but I do think that in general, we need reform of some sort that would put more power in the hands of the people, the change need not be so drastic as shift in form of democracy, but the current political structure needs to make it less difficult to oust incumbents, and always we need to strive to reduce political misinformation, especially coming from our representatives themselves.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

In response to Jam, I don't believe that discrimination is ever fair, even if it is endorsed by a majority of voters. However, I don't believe that representative democracy is a sure fire way of ensuring discrimination doesn't occur.

As Jam pointed out, is it fair that a majority of ignorant voters can take away your rights? Or limit them in some fashion?

Well, I'm sure you can limit them in some fashion, Bill of Rights, Constitution etc.

Secondly, if the majority of voters are ignorant, then wouldn't their representatives be representing their ignorant principles, in order to stay in office, or at least pretend to?

If civil rights were dependent on direct democracy, blacks probably still wouldn't have the right to vote. But I guess that's fair.

I'm not sure if you're entirely correct on this, this sort of thing went to a referendum in Australia, and it worked. In 1967, a referendum occurred to change the constitution, to allow the Aborigines to be counted in the census, this was met with overwhelming support. Would it be so different in the USA? I don't know

They get that representation in the house, the senate is designed to protect smaller states from larger states with a run away majority.

Sure, then we can have a double majority system, where you need a majority of voters, then a majority of states, to do such a thing.

You can't just abolish the states, once you're in the union you're in it for life.

I suppose so...

I'll respond to manhunter a little later, I'm kinda busy now.

 

[Aesir]

In response to Jam, I don't believe that discrimination is ever fair, even if it is endorsed by a majority of voters. However, I don't believe that representative democracy is a sure fire way of ensuring discrimination doesn't occur.

That's funny because political scientists will tell you that representative democracy protects the rights of minorities.

Well, I'm sure you can limit them in some fashion, Bill of Rights, Constitution etc.

What's stopping them from passing a constitutional amendment that repeals the bill of rights?

Secondly, if the majority of voters are ignorant, then wouldn't their representatives be representing their ignorant principles, in order to stay in office, or at least pretend to?

Legislators tend to be college educated and better understand the issues than their constituents. They may appeal to that ignorance, but they're representing a district, and their votes can be off set by the more intelligent legislators who come from far more open minded districts.

I'm not sure if you're entirely correct on this, this sort of thing went to a referendum in Australia, and it worked. In 1967, a referendum occurred to change the constitution, to allow the Aborigines to be counted in the census, this was met with overwhelming support. Would it be so different in the USA? I don't know

I know my countries history and politics very well. I can tell you, had civil rights been an issue by referendum it would have been defeated. Referendums are completely dependent on the temperament of the population. This is not how you want to make laws.

Sure, then we can have a double majority system, where you need a majority of voters, then a majority of states, to do such a thing.

Voters don't understand the issues to make valid judgements. This is why we elect law makers to make those decisions and to protect the rights of minorities. (there's other selling points too.)

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I have to say that it would be rather difficult to create any consistent organization in the political structure if we were a direct democracy. For a political system to even work it needs to have elites, ideally our vote holds those elites responsible since we can vote them out of office.

There could be something of a middle ground, not quite like California, constitutional referendums and the like are incredibly foolhardy, people being able to petition for and vote on some amount of legislative material though, I feel would be very healthy for a democracy. As legislation of course it would be subject to constitutional limitations. That said in order for any democracy to be essential the government must be true to its constitution, and its constitution needs to strongly protect civil rights. Regardless of what we do though, all forms of government are going to be imposing the will of one person (or many, or the majority, etc) on another group of people to some degree.

Yes, well, it is possible to have a body of law makers, like a parliament, to propose laws and then the public vote on such laws. A constitution should be kept however.

I think its obvious that we come some serious problems in Washington, I don't believe many of the leaders that founded any nation knew much about how the political structure of representative systems actually worked. Good ideals are very well, and they will get us very far, but I do think that in general, we need reform of some sort that would put more power in the hands of the people, the change need not be so drastic as shift in form of democracy, but the current political structure needs to make it less difficult to oust incumbents, and always we need to strive to reduce political misinformation, especially coming from our representatives themselves.

I agree almost entirely.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

That's funny because political scientists will tell you that representative democracy protects the rights of minorities.

Hang-on, wait but, representative democracy gave you plenty of racist laws, before the Civil Rights Movement right? It's not perfect.

What's stopping them from passing a constitutional amendment that repeals the bill of rights?

The fact that attempting to pass a constitutional amendment that repeals the bill of rights, would be, in my mind rather unpopular, perhaps?

That's funny because political scientists will tell you that representative democracy protects the rights of minorities.

Hang-on, wait but, representative democracy gave you plenty of racist laws, before the Civil Rights Movement right? It's not perfect.

Legislators tend to be college educated and better understand the issues than their constituents. They may appeal to that ignorance, but they're representing a district, and their votes can be off set by the more intelligent legislators who come from far more open minded districts.

They also, may or may not have vested interests. The more intelligent the politician, the better he is at funnelling money into said vested interests, usually.

I know my countries history and politics very well. I can tell you, had civil rights been an issue by referendum it would have been defeated. Referendums are completely dependent on the temperament of the population. This is not how you want to make laws.

I guess that is a valid point, however, it should be noted, that we shouldn't leave the lawmaking to generally out-of-touch people with vested interests, who only seem to wish to stay in power.

Voters don't understand the issues to make valid judgements. This is why we elect law makers to make those decisions and to protect the rights of minorities. (there's other selling points too.)

You elect law makers to make those decisions for you, and most of them don't even read the bills their voting on?

 

[Aesir]

Hang-on, wait but, representative democracy gave you plenty of racist laws, before the Civil Rights Movement right? It's not perfect.

That was a fault of federalism. Prior to the civil rights movement, states were given a lot of power in that regard. It was not the fault of Representative democracy it was the fault of federalism which creates inequalities among the states.

The fact that attempting to pass a constitutional amendment that repeals the bill of rights, would be, in my mind rather unpopular, perhaps?

You're assume the population will always make rational based decisions. Right now there are many who wish to repeal the part in the constitution that says "All people born in the us are citizens of the united states."

Hang-on, wait but, representative democracy gave you plenty of racist laws, before the Civil Rights Movement right? It's not perfect.

Look above.

They also, may or may not have vested interests. The more intelligent the politician, the better he is at funnelling money into said vested interests, usually.

Politicians are not as closed minded as his constituents may be. That's the point.

I guess that is a valid point, however, it should be noted, that we shouldn't leave the lawmaking to generally out-of-touch people with vested interests, who only seem to wish to stay in power.

Term limits.

You elect law makers to make those decisions for you, and most of them don't even read the bills their voting on?

The house has sessions where they just read bills. Unless the bill is being hammered through both chambers in one day many law makers are going to read the bill. Either that or have a lawyer read it for them and explain it to them.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

That was a fault of federalism. Prior to the civil rights movement, states were given a lot of power in that regard. It was not the fault of Representative democracy it was the fault of federalism which creates inequalities among the states.

Okay, but it should be noted that, representative democracy gave you the PATRIOT Act. Though, I'm not sure if that'd rejected by direct democracy, the name probably says it all really...

You're assume the population will always make rational based decisions. Right now there are many who wish to repeal the part in the constitution that says "All people born in the us are citizens of the united states."

Well, it's better than assuming that politicians will always make the best decisions for the country, as opposed to vested interests.

Politicians are not as closed minded as his constituents may be. That's the point.

Sure, but they have bucket loads more vested interests. Lobbyists exist for this sort of thing.

Term limits.

Uh No. I know this is old, but the incumbency rate in US Congress is just a joke. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3724372.stm

Basically, gerrymandering is possibly one of the nastiest things about representative democracy. I doubt it's going to be any where near the problem it is now, with direct democracy, because the public is always able to vote on the bills. So, you can gerrymander all you like, and all it's going to do, is get a bunch of powerless representatives elected.

The house has sessions where they just read bills. Unless the bill is being hammered through both chambers in one day many law makers are going to read the bill. Either that or have a lawyer read it for them and explain it to them.

Congressman Conyers Jr. would disagree with you there.

 

[Faithkeeper]

Sure, but they have bucket loads more vested interests. Lobbyists exist for this sort of thing.

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but do you argue that the common man has no vested interests? With a majority winning scenario, rural America would receive less funding, government funded programs would cater to the majority, therefore the more populated areas.

I don't see how individuals are significantly less prone to having vested interests that are not in the best interest of the nation.

Example 1:
Government has X amount of dollars. This money will go towards repaving streets in one city. In a direct democracy, the city with the higher voter turnout will get the money. Does it matter if the other city has worse road conditions? No, I don't live there. I live here and I want better roads. The implications of the larger city continually getting state funding over the even slightly smaller one can be vast and varied.

Example 2:
We need more money. We vote to raise taxes. Who do we raise taxes on? The rich, they have more money and are a minority. While this doesn't create an end of the world scenario, As long as the poor outnumber the rich, they can continue to raise taxes on the wealthy without end, because they will continually be able to vote for that kind of scenario. Why get a college education or especially a graduate degree and a good job only to be taxed into the middle class?

Perhaps this is an extreme example, but it serves its purpose to make a point.


Now I would love to believe everyone is rational and would do things for the betterment of the nation, and this might even work in a collectivist culture, who knows? But given the things are, or at least the way I see them in my country (United States), I can hardly see that as a reality.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Example 1:
Government has X amount of dollars. This money will go towards repaving streets in one city. In a direct democracy, the city with the higher voter turnout will get the money. Does it matter if the other city has worse road conditions? No, I don't live there. I live here and I want better roads. The implications of the larger city continually getting state funding over the even slightly smaller one can be vast and varied.

Or on a national scale, money and resources would always flow to the East and West Coast, and the MidWest would cease to exist politically.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but do you argue that the common man has no vested interests? With a majority winning scenario, rural America would receive less funding, government funded programs would cater to the majority, therefore the more populated areas.

Well, if you think about it, the more populated areas deserve more money, because they need it.

I don't see how individuals are significantly less prone to having vested interests that are not in the best interest of the nation.

My point is, that politicians have vested interests that stop them from doing their job, representing the public.

Example 1:
Government has X amount of dollars. This money will go towards repaving streets in one city. In a direct democracy, the city with the higher voter turnout will get the money. Does it matter if the other city has worse road conditions? No, I don't live there. I live here and I want better roads. The implications of the larger city continually getting state funding over the even slightly smaller one can be vast and varied.

I can't really counter that... You've raised a good point.

Example 2:
We need more money. We vote to raise taxes. Who do we raise taxes on? The rich, they have more money and are a minority. While this doesn't create an end of the world scenario, As long as the poor outnumber the rich, they can continue to raise taxes on the wealthy without end, because they will continually be able to vote for that kind of scenario. Why get a college education or especially a graduate degree and a good job only to be taxed into the middle class?

The funny thing is, the rich should be taxed more, in my opinion. Heck, some people are swimming in money, they don't need the extra cash. Taxes on them would be fine.

Now I would love to believe everyone is rational and would do things for the betterment of the nation, and this might even work in a collectivist culture, who knows? But given the things are, or at least the way I see them in my country (United States), I can hardly see that as a reality.

Well, this is a problem with democracy in general. Stupid people elect candidates that represent their stupid interests, and the candidate's personal interests, then, the stupid people don't realise that the whole thing is method of funnelling public money into vested interests....

 

[Faithkeeper]

Well, if you think about it, the more populated areas deserve more money, because they need it.

Granted, but it sets up situations like my example 1 in which while they may have a larger population, the amount of funding they receive is disproportionate to their relative size in comparison to less populated area.

My point is, that politicians have vested interests that stop them from doing their job, representing the public.

But when the public, with its own vested interests can create just as bad or even worse scenarios, I think that point is irrelevant. If the politician does anything too terribly wrong they wont be re-elected.

The funny thing is, the rich should be taxed more, in my opinion. Heck, some people are swimming in money, they don't need the extra cash. Taxes on them would be fine.

Maybe the rich should be taxed more, but should they be taxed any time we need to raise taxes? This would really discourage higher education because there is less fiscal motivation to become very educated. Not sure about where you live, but where I live, I would like to encourage people to get educated as much as possible because my nation can use all the bright, educated mind it can get.

Well, this is a problem with democracy in general. Stupid people elect candidates that represent their stupid interests, and the candidate's personal interests, then, the stupid people don't realise that the whole thing is method of funnelling public money into vested interests....

I'll take a representative who is a college grad and prone to lobbyists over the general populace when less than one third of them has a college degree (source) and is just as prone to other biases when can be as aversive to the nation's interests as anything I've seen a representative do.

 

[Aesir]

Maybe the rich should be taxed more, but should they be taxed any time we need to raise taxes? This would really discourage higher education because there is less fiscal motivation to become very educated. Not sure about where you live, but where I live, I would like to encourage people to get educated as much as possible because my nation can use all the bright, educated mind it can get.

Unless we're going back to WWII taxation percentages it still makes more sense to become educated and successful than to become uneducated and poor.

 

[Faithkeeper]

Unless we're going back to WWII taxation percentages it still makes more sense to become educated and successful than to become uneducated and poor.

The actual percentage were unknown, this is all theoretical, but what's stopping a direct democracy from raising taxes to those percentages? You raise a good point, however, it would probably still make sense to become educated, but in general if someone was going to let their education decision be affected by how much money they'd be making after said further education, a lower "real" income due to raised taxes could affect their decision.

 

[Aesir]

The actual percentage were unknown, this is all theoretical, but what's stopping a direct democracy from raising taxes to those percentages? You raise a good point, however, it would probably still make sense to become educated, but in general if someone was going to let their education decision be affected by how much money they'd be making after said further education, a lower "real" income due to raised taxes could affect their decision.

Even then it still makes sense because you're making more money regardless. Going to school to be a doctor makes more economic sense than going out there with a high school diploma. You're still going to be very well off at a higher tax rate. Unless of course the tax rate is extremely high to the point it decentifies getting that level of education.

Generally speaking though Direct Democracies will almost always vote to decrease taxes, because the general public is motivated by self interest.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Generally speaking though Direct Democracies will almost always vote to decrease taxes, because the general public is motivated by self interest.

Even if the interest is of detriment to them...

I think of my glorious state, where it seems direct democracy is in effect. No politician will consider raising taxes.

Though, IMHO, raising them (and this is coming from someone about to enter the work world in two months) would provide much needed revenue.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Granted, but it sets up situations like my example 1 in which while they may have a larger population, the amount of funding they receive is disproportionate to their relative size in comparison to less populated area.

Good point.

But when the public, with its own vested interests can create just as bad or even worse scenarios, I think that point is irrelevant. If the politician does anything too terribly wrong they wont be re-elected.

George W. Bush? He got re-elected, he was pretty bad, right?

Maybe the rich should be taxed more, but should they be taxed any time we need to raise taxes? This would really discourage higher education because there is less fiscal motivation to become very educated. Not sure about where you live, but where I live, I would like to encourage people to get educated as much as possible because my nation can use all the bright, educated mind it can get.

Yeah sure, but remember, the fact is that it's unlikely to get to that level.

I'll take a representative who is a college grad and prone to lobbyists over the general populace when less than one third of them has a college degree (source) and is just as prone to other biases when can be as aversive to the nation's interests as anything I've seen a representative do.

Yeah sure, I see what you mean.