Against Ballot Measures

Not so democratic. Plus all the links.

When the Democrats won the Virginia redistricting ballot measure last week, some Republicans complained that it was unfair because big city voters outvoted rural voters. That, of course, is flat-out wrong. The basic idea of one person, one vote is correctly considered fundamental in republics (even though there are legitimate arguments about how it should be implemented and what counts as violations). The government represents citizens, not land, and if people are outnumbered, they’re outnumbered.

On the other hand: Some Democrats answered back that Virginia and California had more democratic procedures than Texas because, unlike Texas, they took the vote to the people. That’s wrong, too!

Direct democracy for large polities is just a mess.

Yes, on the surface, it appears to be a way to find the will of the people. The surface view is wrong.

To begin with, statewide propositions such as these give enormous influence to whoever gets to decide what will be up for a vote – which topics, and what the exact wording will be. As with all non-partisan votes, it also gives lots of influence to the media and to big-money interests. That’s because most voters have only vague opinions on many policy questions. So they’re dependent on the immediate information environment, which is often dominated by the media and paid advertising.

Candidate elections, on the other hand, are generally contested between parties; voters can use party as a generally reliable shortcut. That’s particularly appropriate on an issue such as districting, where almost no one has strong views beyond their party’s immediate interests. It’s also true that drawing district lines has a host of technical issues that the general public, and even most elites, are not particularly familiar with. In short, even if voters have real opinions on questions as marriage equality or minimum wage, it’s very unlikely they have strongly-held views on how to draw district lines.

Indeed, the Virginia campaign by the Democrats really came down to convincing people that voting yes was the way to support the party and stick it to Donald Trump. I have nothing against that in candidate elections – those are good reasons for vote choice! – but if that’s all that a ballot measure is, it’s hard to see what that brings that representative government doesn’t have. Except for the chance that people’s real preference will be undermined by the media or by advertising.

Oh, and while ballot measures make voting harder by removing the most obvious cue, they also in these cases took place outside of the normal November election and therefore introduce another bias in favor of habitual, and against occasional, voters. It’s just another way that something that may appear to be the pure will of the people is actually the outcome of battles to manipulate the results. Of course, all elections have an element of elite manipulation, but fixed-date, high-profile elections create a much more even playing field.

On top of all that, taking important policy questions away from legislatures and placing them on the ballot tends to hollow out representative government. Why bargain and compromise in the legislature if there’s a shortcut of going directly to the people? And even more damaging, in my view: Why get involved in a political party, fighting hard for one’s interests and preferences, if the party is ultimately unable to play a direct role in governing?

To be clear: I don’t blame Democrats for fighting back once Republicans started this mid-decade gerrymandering. They’re doing what they need to do.

I’m just saying: Even in the best of circumstances, direct democracy at the state level fails to deliver what it claims to offer while undermining the normal processes of representative government. And this topic is by no means the best of circumstances.

Apologies to the links I missed while on the road this week, but the ones I do have are a good set. Enjoy!

1. Miranda Yaver on prior authorizations.

2. Perry Bacon talks with Elizabeth Saunders about Trump and Iran.

3. Charles Franklin on public opinion and Iran.

4. Lindsey Cormack on Congress after Columbine.

5. Matt Glassman on the Virginia measure. I think I’m fairly close to where he is on redistricting, for what it’s worth, but I would have decided based on partisanship, rather than substance.

6. Seth Masket is very good on the foiled assasination attempt.

7. Eric McGhee and Mindy Romero on why California counts votes so slowly.

8. And Michael Tesler at Good Authority on Republicans and weed.