[EM] non-binding direct democracy system

[Ernest Prabhakar]

Hi James,

On Mar 25, 2004, at 9:15 AM, James Green-Armytage wrote:

>> I guess I would take your proposal more seriously if it included a
>> critique of how referenda system work in other places (like
>> California), and why your proposal would improve upon them.  Right 
>> now,
>> it sounded to me more like a philosophical hope that direct democracy
>> would solve these problems, rather than an empirically-based analysis.
>
> 	Well, I am surely coming from more of a rational-imaginative direction
> than an empirical one. Surely both are valuable. However, on this list 
> it
> is very common for proposals or arguments to have little or no 
> empirical
> content, in some cases because they deal with voting methods which have
> not been put to practical use. So it doesn't seem very fair to single 
> my
> proposal out in particular for not being empirically grounded enough.

I don't think you're being singled out.   My impression is that the 
purpose of the list is to discuss and evaluate the efficacy of various 
proposals for improving political choice, and I do think referenda are 
a valid topic.

So, you're right that it may be excessive to require strong empirical 
research.   However, my feeling was that your proposal didn't contain 
_any_ strong motivation besides a rather vague belief in the value of 
direct democracy.  You don't need tested evidence, but you at least 
need a coherent argument -why- you think your system improves upon the 
alternatives.  And you should at least demonstrate some awareness of 
the alternatives.  Otherwise, I don't think it advances the debate in 
any meaningful way.

> 	I would be quite interested in a critique of how referenda systems 
> work,
> but at this point you seem better equipped to provide that than I am. I
> would certainly appreciate it if you'd like to outline how the 
> California
> system works along with its pros and cons as you perceive them. Perhaps
> other people on the list who have experience with other referenda 
> systems
> could also contribute along these lines.

As  I said, the referenda system in California appears to suffer from 
the same systemic bipolarization and demagoguery as the regular 
election process, and our assemblies.   In the absence of centrist, 
majority-consensus-building leaders, I don't see any particular benefit 
to direct democracy.  Its only value, in this view, is if it provides a 
mechanism where those can emerge (as, arguably, the California Recall 
did, if in a strange way).   Extending referenda to the national stage 
is likely to exacerbate the demagoguery.  Making the referenda 
non-binding doesn't address this concern, as far as I can tell; all it 
would do is decrease voter interest and turnout, making it little 
different than an opinion poll.    Which our current leaders slavishly 
listen to -- and manipulate -- already.  So, what's the point?

> 	However, lacking this information doesn't render my own proposal 
> invalid
> at all. The possibility remains that it would work terribly well if it 
> was
> implemented.

But its not so much that your proposal is invalid, as that I find it 
insipid.  Sure, anything's possible, but I haven't seen any good 
reasons given to believe that your system would work terribly well.

On the other hand, the very fact that I'm writing this indicates that 
your proposal forced me to think and articulate my thoughts, so I guess 
I have to take back my claim that it didn't advance the debate.  
Touche!

-- Ernie P.




-----------
RadicalCentrism.org is an anti-partisan think tank near Sacramento, 
California, dedicated to developing and promoting the ideals of 
Reality, Character, Community and Humility as expressed in our Radical 
Centrist Manifesto: Ground Rules of Civil Society 
<http://RadicalCentrism.org/manifesto.html>