Direct democracy
From WhyNotWiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendment_to_U.S._Constitution.
The populist potential is highest in those 21 states where the constitutions give citizens the power to place initiatives on the ballot for consideration by the state's electorate. Where passed by the people resolutions might provoke (though not compel) the respective state legislatures to act. Thus citizens in 21 of the 50 States, through their power to place resolves on the ballot, might employ a process bordering on direct democracy to promote amendments to the national constitution. In the remaining 29 states, where direct democracy would have less application or none at all, citizens would proceed via representative democracy to elect willing legislators and lobby the solons to petition Congress as per Article V.
After an Article V convention, the ratification procedures would again afford citizens a say through populist influence on the state legislatures. Or, alternatively, the ratification process would best resemble a plebiscite if (as was the case with the 21st Amendment) the people themselves elect ratifying conventions rather than leave the issue to professional legislators. The campaigns to serve as delegates to ad hoc ratifying conventions would most closely reflect the people's verdict on what has emerged from the convention.
Notwithstanding such an extraordinary scenario, the fact also remains that state legislators have more proximity and familiarity with their constituencies than do politicians based in Washington, D.C. Logistically and politically, citizens will find it much easier to lobby their state representative or state senator on behalf of an Article V convention than to make personal contact with a U.S. Representative or U.S. Senator in order to get their backing for a Constitutional Amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majoritarianism.
Accurate majority rule (by using polls in order to define accurately what the majority really wants today and make every decision based on that majority will) has never been tried as a political system in human history, with the exception of the majoritarian system which had been used in Athenian democracy and some other ancient Greek city-states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum.
Contents
[edit] Criticisms
Although some advocates of direct democracy would have the referendum become the dominant institution of government, in practice and in principle, in almost all cases, the referendum exists solely as a complement to the system of representative democracy, in which most major decisions are made by an elected legislature. An often cited exception is the Swiss canton of Glaris, in which meetings are held on the village lawn to decide on matters of public concern. In most jurisdictions that practice them, referendums are relatively rare occurrences and are restricted to important issues.
Advocates of the referendum argue that certain decisions are best taken out of the hands of representatives and determined directly by the people. Some adopt a strict definition of democracy, saying elected parliaments are a necessary expedient to make governance possible in the large, modern nation-state, though direct democracy is nonetheless preferable and the referendum takes precedence over Parliamentary decisions.
Other advocates insist that the principle of popular sovereignty demands that certain foundational questions, such as the adoption or amendment of a constitution, the secession of a state or the altering of national boundaries, be determined with the directly expressed consent of the people.
Advocates of representative democracy say referendums are used by politicians to avoid making difficult or controversial decisions.
[edit] Criticism of populist aspect
Critics of the referendum argue that voters in a referendum are more likely driven by transient whims than careful deliberation, or that they are not sufficiently informed to make decisions on complicated or technical issues. Voters might furthermore be swayed by strong personalities, or the adverse influence of propaganda or expensive advertising campaigns. James Madison argued that direct democracy is the "tyranny of the majority."
Some opposition to the referendum has arisen from its use by dictators such as Hitler and Mussolini who, it is argued, used the plebiscite to disguise oppressive policies in a veneer of populism. Hitler's use of the plebiscite is one reason why, since World War II, there has been no provision in Germany for the holding of referendums at the federal level.
...
[edit] Never-end-um
A further perceived flaw of the referendum is that in some circumstances the democratic spirit of the referendum may be flouted by the repeated submission to the referendum of a proposal until it is eventually endorsed, perhaps due to a low turn-out or public fatigue with the issue. This is especially a problem where a proposal may be difficult to reverse, such as secession from a larger country or the abolition of a monarchy. The repeated holding of a referendum on a single issue has been pejoratively referred to as the phenomenon of the "never-end-um".
[edit] Closed questions and the separability problem
Some critics of the referendum attack the use of closed questions. A difficulty which can plague a referendum of two issues or more is called the separability problem. If one issue is in fact, or in perception, related to another on the ballot, the imposed simultaneous voting of first preference on each issue can result in an outcome that is displeasing to most.
