The referendum is the most obvious manifestation of the tyranny of democracy.
Simple majority rule is probably the worst way to make decisions in almost any context. The "will of the people" enabled the US secession and brought the Nazis to power in Germany. Our founders, and philosophers before and since, have warned about excessive democracy and the perils it poses to individual liberties.
For all the supporters of more direct democracy here, I suggest, be careful what you wish for. By definition, any "minority" right is voided. At the very least, self-governed management quickly becomes distracted and dysfunctional. At the absurd, voters can impose bizarre expectations (let's vote for unlimited free ice cream and mandatory slim physiques). And, most dangerously, direct voting could lead to immediate persecution of any people or ideas not supported the the majority of the moment.
Simple majority rule is probably the worst way to make decisions in almost any context. The "will of the people" enabled the US secession and brought the Nazis to power in Germany. Our founders, and philosophers before and since, have warned about excessive democracy and the perils it poses to individual liberties.
For all the supporters of more direct democracy here, I suggest, be careful what you wish for. By definition, any "minority" right is voided. At the very least, self-governed management quickly becomes distracted and dysfunctional. At the absurd, voters can impose bizarre expectations (let's vote for unlimited free ice cream and mandatory slim physiques). And, most dangerously, direct voting could lead to immediate persecution of any people or ideas not supported the the majority of the moment.
the minority doesn't have a right to the EU.
Until referendums are incorporated into American life, our democracy will remain only an illusion.
We elect people to protect and preserve our country and interests but, being politicians, they exist only to serve themselves.
Bring on the referendums for important issues like illegal immigration, our shameless tax code, etc and get the big money out of politics so that corporations and the Establishment cannot buy every election with their endless propaganda.
That's the day I dream of...
We elect people to protect and preserve our country and interests but, being politicians, they exist only to serve themselves.
Bring on the referendums for important issues like illegal immigration, our shameless tax code, etc and get the big money out of politics so that corporations and the Establishment cannot buy every election with their endless propaganda.
That's the day I dream of...
2
Congress may be broken, but no one with a grain of sense wants direct democracy. This would lead to a tyranny of the majority. We may as well have a dictatorship. And don't you know that Brexit was accomplished through propaganda and lies? Most of the people who voted for it are now having buyer's remorse because they see now the lies they were fed to get them to vote to leave. Abject stupidity.
The United States is not a democracy, it's a republic. That means we elect people to represent us. Direct democracy would be impractical and I fear would lead to even more simplification of complex issues.
I have a few things I wish I'd been able to vote on.
NAFTA.
Out-sourcing, off-shoring.
Who could get the trillions in help after the collapse of 2008. I would have voted for those who were trapped in fraudulent loans, not Wall Street.
The Iraq war.
Afghanistan.
The Pentagon budget.
The Hyde Amendment.
Constitutional equality for females.
Who gets fed in this country.
No homeless.
No guns.
And I'd really like a vote in this country on a progressive tax-rate... and, yes, I'd use Dwight Eisenhower's rates of 90% on the 1%.
Add minimum wage.... and then ask me if I believe there should be a maximum wage...
When the needs of democracy are ignored, laughed at, sneered at, and discarded, then, and only then, does Polybius's "mob-rule" kick in, you know, the ruling concept that "democracy" is always supposed to lead to.
But, from what I've seen in 68 years is that "mob-rule" only happens when the elites of a republic ignore the needs, the desires, and the common-sense of those that they think they "rule".
90% of this nation says there should be gun control.
50% of Congress is owned by the NRA.
Let's vote on that....
NAFTA.
Out-sourcing, off-shoring.
Who could get the trillions in help after the collapse of 2008. I would have voted for those who were trapped in fraudulent loans, not Wall Street.
The Iraq war.
Afghanistan.
The Pentagon budget.
The Hyde Amendment.
Constitutional equality for females.
Who gets fed in this country.
No homeless.
No guns.
And I'd really like a vote in this country on a progressive tax-rate... and, yes, I'd use Dwight Eisenhower's rates of 90% on the 1%.
Add minimum wage.... and then ask me if I believe there should be a maximum wage...
When the needs of democracy are ignored, laughed at, sneered at, and discarded, then, and only then, does Polybius's "mob-rule" kick in, you know, the ruling concept that "democracy" is always supposed to lead to.
But, from what I've seen in 68 years is that "mob-rule" only happens when the elites of a republic ignore the needs, the desires, and the common-sense of those that they think they "rule".
90% of this nation says there should be gun control.
50% of Congress is owned by the NRA.
Let's vote on that....
8
Ah, so THIS is what it felt like watching from the outside when we re-elected George W Bush after the abject failure of his first term. Seeing the Brits doing something so monumentally stupid and short-sighted, just because so-called "experts" told them not to do it.
I honestly think 40-50% of people do not exit the "petulant child" stage. Ever.
I honestly think 40-50% of people do not exit the "petulant child" stage. Ever.
4
Well we Wouldn't want too much democracy. We have sent billions to the Middle East to give them democracy. We have spilt more blood that I care to contemplate to protect democracy but now if we don't like the outcome ....risky democracy! I guess that's why you guys love Clinton and the TTP. It does away with all that pesky democracy and just lets the corporations write the rules directly!
2
It personally reminds me of the feeling I had in the build up to the war in Iraq..surely good sense will prevail and this will not happen. It now causes me worry about the coming U.S. presidential election. Surely a majority of citizens could not vote for something so short sighted and absurd..
In a bigger picture, It also seems to me absurd to have such an incredibly important decision, with such far reaching ramifications left to be decided by a referendum. Would you have a similar vote for the best rocket fuel for NASA to use on a trip to Mars? It seems to make similar sense to me.
In a bigger picture, It also seems to me absurd to have such an incredibly important decision, with such far reaching ramifications left to be decided by a referendum. Would you have a similar vote for the best rocket fuel for NASA to use on a trip to Mars? It seems to make similar sense to me.
1
Scotland may now choose to leave the UK and join the EU!
3
Our founders were adamantly against referenda. The unforseen, misunderstood and complex ramifications of this vote for the British people will vindicate our founders' wisdom once again. And the folks who have voted to leave the EU will suffer the most of all.
3
Of course the NYT hates democracy and the will of the people and considers them dangerous when the people don't vote the "right" way i.e. for open borders and the cultural destruction of the West. The left has shown itself in recent years to be fundamentally anti-democratic and increasingly authoritarian.
3
Congratulations to the UK, who chose freedom and liberation, over being ruled by wealthy liberal bureaucrats of the EU, over whom they had no vote.
Shows you that you can only abuse people so much before they rebel.
Shows you that you can only abuse people so much before they rebel.
4
Why tie yourself to a bunch of knuckleheads who care only about themselves? Bail!
3
Be brave, Britain. Be yourself, not some nebulous "European" identity. Be brave, and resist the pressure of economics uber alles. Be brave, and trust in hundreds of years of British culture and history that knows better than technocrats in Brussels. Be Brave, Britain, and go it alone. Your American cousins will also be there for you.
Be brave and exit!
Be brave and exit!
5
Close minded tribalism. If the Leave vote wins then the English and Welsh will have violated an essential condition which led to the Scots voting down separation from Great Britain. This will lead to another referendum and the Scots will vote to leave Great Britain and join the EU. Ironic and sad.
8
Purely from the perspective of entertainment and my level of satisfaction with the outcome, I think I like the direction elections are heading in this day and age. There are usually two significant choices as follows.
There's a neoliberal "establishment" option that wants to keep the current global power structures mostly the way they are, with a few adjustments to some of the dials and knobs, and usually a barely concealed agenda to push further neoliberal policies like TTIP and TPP. This is supported by virtually all of the elites (as it is the system that sustains their power) along with people who fear they have something substantial to lose if the system is dismantled.
Then there's the populist option. The existing power structures are strongly disliked by large portions of the population, and the populists wish to dismantle it and try new policies. These policies are usually not well thought out, but they represent a promise of actual change and appeal to people who have been stagnating or declining under the current system. Things would probably get worse in the short run and there's no guarantee that they'll get better later on, and right-wing populists always attract all of the racists as well. There's serious danger, but also a serious chance for change.
The UK vote is a pure establishment-populist vote, with the establishment of all major parties supporting the EU and some dissident politicians and lots of voters crossing party lines each way. Very interesting!
There's a neoliberal "establishment" option that wants to keep the current global power structures mostly the way they are, with a few adjustments to some of the dials and knobs, and usually a barely concealed agenda to push further neoliberal policies like TTIP and TPP. This is supported by virtually all of the elites (as it is the system that sustains their power) along with people who fear they have something substantial to lose if the system is dismantled.
Then there's the populist option. The existing power structures are strongly disliked by large portions of the population, and the populists wish to dismantle it and try new policies. These policies are usually not well thought out, but they represent a promise of actual change and appeal to people who have been stagnating or declining under the current system. Things would probably get worse in the short run and there's no guarantee that they'll get better later on, and right-wing populists always attract all of the racists as well. There's serious danger, but also a serious chance for change.
The UK vote is a pure establishment-populist vote, with the establishment of all major parties supporting the EU and some dissident politicians and lots of voters crossing party lines each way. Very interesting!
4
UKIP did in fact get a very large number of votes in the last election. However, because of the 'first past the post' system, they won hardly any seats. Many consider this unfair.
2
Great Britain -- engineers of modern economic integration --will not leave the EU. Integration resembles marriage. Relatively easy to get in, hard to get out.
Brexit is the equivalent of asking a married man to divorce his wife of thirty five years. The reason? to regain the freedom of a single man, to take back control of his life :)
Will the British - one of the most pragmatic people on earth -- take such bait switch kind of proposal? I don't think so.
Brexit is the equivalent of asking a married man to divorce his wife of thirty five years. The reason? to regain the freedom of a single man, to take back control of his life :)
Will the British - one of the most pragmatic people on earth -- take such bait switch kind of proposal? I don't think so.
1
So much for that prediction!
1
Yes, a vote on a matter of actual substance is the worst thing to ever happen to democracy.
Just think of the consequences if folks had their way! In the U.S. it would mean free college, free healthcare and higher taxes on wealth. Heaven forfend!
Bring back the election year platitudes and the blow-dried candidates and we'll all sleep easier....
Just think of the consequences if folks had their way! In the U.S. it would mean free college, free healthcare and higher taxes on wealth. Heaven forfend!
Bring back the election year platitudes and the blow-dried candidates and we'll all sleep easier....
18
Actually, free college splits the country in half with neither side getting a majority, universal healthcare depends greatly on how the question is asked and what you tell them about the way in which it will be accomplished (will my taxes go up, is it run by the government, do you use the term medicare...), people support higher taxes, but not much higher taxes.
On the flip side a majority of people believe that their personal tax rate is too high so the government would be forced to cut services. The public switches back and forth on abortion, do you really want for abortion to be legal one year then illegal the next? A plurality want to decrease immigration, in '06 a majority wanted a wall between us and mexico.
Just because you can find some good things that a majority support doesn't mean that there are not a lot, maybe even more, things that people want which are stupid.
On the flip side a majority of people believe that their personal tax rate is too high so the government would be forced to cut services. The public switches back and forth on abortion, do you really want for abortion to be legal one year then illegal the next? A plurality want to decrease immigration, in '06 a majority wanted a wall between us and mexico.
Just because you can find some good things that a majority support doesn't mean that there are not a lot, maybe even more, things that people want which are stupid.
3
Perhaps a minor point, but California does not have a "habit" of holding single-issue ballots. Rather, it has a law limiting propositions to a single subject. However, ballots may and almost always do contain propositions on a variety of different subjects, not to mention competing propositions on the same subject.
This multitude of propositions may tend to mitigate the single issue nature of each proposition. When there are more issues on the ballot, more voters with a more diverse set of perspectives may be drawn to the election polls. It isn't just the single issue voters who decide in these elections.
In contrast, the Brexit referendum stands alone on the ballot. So what you get is a result "untainted" by other issues, for better or for worse.
https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_the_initiative_process_in_California
https://ballotpedia.org/California_1978_ballot_propositions
This multitude of propositions may tend to mitigate the single issue nature of each proposition. When there are more issues on the ballot, more voters with a more diverse set of perspectives may be drawn to the election polls. It isn't just the single issue voters who decide in these elections.
In contrast, the Brexit referendum stands alone on the ballot. So what you get is a result "untainted" by other issues, for better or for worse.
https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_the_initiative_process_in_California
https://ballotpedia.org/California_1978_ballot_propositions
4
If critical issues are going to be decided by this procedure, what's the point of having a parliament? Cameron made a major mistake opening this can of worms and he may live to regret the outcome.
12
Dictatorship is better? Sounds like liberals don't like the people making choices.
1
The reason we have a senate, and not a true democracy, is to ensure against the "tyranny of the majority," as Alexis De Tocqueville warned about over 200 years ago:
Tocqueville foresaw an “immense tutelary power”—the modern state—which would degrade men rather than destroy their bodies. Over time, he feared, the state would take away citizens’ free will, their capacity to think and act, reducing them to “a herd of timid and industrious animals of which the government is the shepherd.”
Unfortunately, while he was correct in his assessment of democratic tyranny, he failed to see that an uninformed, illiterate voting bloc could be as easily manipulated under our current "representative" government.
Tocqueville foresaw an “immense tutelary power”—the modern state—which would degrade men rather than destroy their bodies. Over time, he feared, the state would take away citizens’ free will, their capacity to think and act, reducing them to “a herd of timid and industrious animals of which the government is the shepherd.”
Unfortunately, while he was correct in his assessment of democratic tyranny, he failed to see that an uninformed, illiterate voting bloc could be as easily manipulated under our current "representative" government.
18
Mr. Eavis says that there are two reasons that might justify the holding of the Brexit referendum: "A vote is overdue, and the British people seem to want the opportunity to vote on Europe separately from a general election."
He concludes that the referendum "has been bruising for Britain. But it's hard to say it was bad for its democracy."
Both his reasons and his conclusion seem unsupported.
First, there didn't seem much desire for a referendum, until David Cameron instituted it for what he thought would be a short-term political gain.
Second, it was bad for democracy for two reasons: It whipped up anti-immigrant and racist feelings; it also indirectly led to the assassination of Jo Cox, M.P.
Democracy has several weaknesses, one of which is demagoguery. Referendums encourage this, while also discouraging orderly procedures, debates, and learning about a complex political issue.
He concludes that the referendum "has been bruising for Britain. But it's hard to say it was bad for its democracy."
Both his reasons and his conclusion seem unsupported.
First, there didn't seem much desire for a referendum, until David Cameron instituted it for what he thought would be a short-term political gain.
Second, it was bad for democracy for two reasons: It whipped up anti-immigrant and racist feelings; it also indirectly led to the assassination of Jo Cox, M.P.
Democracy has several weaknesses, one of which is demagoguery. Referendums encourage this, while also discouraging orderly procedures, debates, and learning about a complex political issue.
29
So you think 'democracy has several weaknesses'? You would rather like the EU then because it lacks democracy at all levels. Oh there is a parliament with elected members but they cannot initiate legislation and barely has the power to influence it. All the real power is vested in the unelected Commission.
8
And what, exactly, do racism and anti-immigration sentiments have to do with democracy?
Modern democracy, or self-government, requires rule of the majority. But it also requires protection of the rights of minorities, including immigrants and people of color, and equal justice for all under law.
1
Voting in a democracy?
Shocking...
Voting is all well and good as long as the people have no real choice.
The problem with the Brexit vote is that it seemed to matter.
People should *never* have a say on issues that matter. Everyone knows that.
Do 'we' let ordinary people vote up or down on wars?
Of course not!
If the people had a say, there would be no wars!
What do ordinary people know about war?
We need *experts* to rule over us because otherwise we'd be too stupid to kill each other.
Etc...
Shocking...
Voting is all well and good as long as the people have no real choice.
The problem with the Brexit vote is that it seemed to matter.
People should *never* have a say on issues that matter. Everyone knows that.
Do 'we' let ordinary people vote up or down on wars?
Of course not!
If the people had a say, there would be no wars!
What do ordinary people know about war?
We need *experts* to rule over us because otherwise we'd be too stupid to kill each other.
Etc...
44
If people "had a say" in France we would have still death penalty and colonies. In period of economic crisis, when people have a say, the right extremist get into power. Hitler was elected, have you guys already forgotten? So be assured that representative democracy is the best system we have, but certainly direct democracy is the worst!
3
Correction : if the people had a say, they'd be plenty of wars ; distant wars, drone wars, bombing wars, the kind that leave the "people" using joysticks in an office to kill other "people" in comfort.
1
Yes, I remember the huge outrage when we invaded Iraq. Of course there was no outrage, because the military and the politicians believed in a "voluntary military," because the public at large did not care if someone else's child had to "die for our freedom," as long it was not them or their children.
--Winston Churchill