Why I Dislike Direct Democracy - Part 2

I defined direct democracy in my last post. So, what's the current alternative? Our republican system of representative government, structured with checks and balances.


The Utah State Legislature (legislative branch) makes laws, the Governor's office and the executive branch enforces and carries out those laws, and the judicial branch interprets those laws and determines whether or not they are constitutional. Each branch checks the other in specific ways.

When a bill is introduced into the legislature, the actual language is up for modification all throughout the process. A sentence changes in committee, a compromise is reached in one house, a different word clarifies intent in another house, a reduction (or increase) of projected expenses is attached from the Legislative Fiscal Analyst, etc. When the bill is finally sent to the Governor to be signed into law or vetoed, it has been discussed, debated, changed, switched, refined - you name it - multiple times. Even then, the law is subject to being overturned by the Supreme Court if it is deemed unconstitutional. And finally, future legislatures may choose to revise, edit, or get rid of the law altogether. (See "How an Idea Becomes A Law" at the Utah State Legislature website: http://le.utah.gov/documents/aboutthelegislature/billtolaw.htm)

One concern that I have with direct democracy ("citizen"-led petitions and initiatives) is the high potential to create BAD POLICY:

1. All 21 pages of this "Ethical Government Initiative" will pass into law "as-is" if Utah voters approve of it in the ballot box. To the best of my knowledge, there is no ability to change, tweak, or refine the language from now till then. So, instead of being discussed and refined by hundreds of involved minds like a legislative bill, the official language of an initiative will only reflect the opinions of the relatively few sponsors who put it together.
   
   
2. When challenged on the previous point, many initiative sponsors claim that the legislature has the power to revise the law in the next session. That may be true, but what legislator in his or her right mind would try to overturn something voted into law by the voters of the state? In the meantime, precious time and resources are wasted to implement a bad policy, only making it harder to change it down the road.
3. 
   
   One common excuse given to legitimize an initiative effort is "We've tried to pass this idea but the legislature (all those evil, nasty, corrupt legislators including the ones we voted into office) keeps shutting us down." Well, could it be shut down because it's just a bad idea, or even more, because the legislators we elect to serve as watchdogs can discern good, effective proposals from those that are little more than a political ploy to gain more power? Some interest groups/factions have a hard time accepting a little "Vitamin N" - "NO!"



4. I wonder if some interest groups try to get initiatives passed in order to circumvent the legislative process. It's a short cut. Let's face it - any type of democratic government is going to be messy because of all the different perspectives that come to the table. It's not easy to get laws passed. It's not an efficient system, but our Founding Fathers knew that and counted on it to keep bad policies in check as much as possible. A truly "efficient" system would be like an absolute monarchy. The problem with that kind of system is a lack of freedom. I tend to be quite wary when a group tries the "short cut" way around the elected legislature.

Okay, that's enough for now. Get ready for some more ideas tomorrow!