Hacker News Reader

Comment by tokenadult | Hacker News Reader

The founders of the United States knew that a representative democracy (what they termed a "republic") has some distinct advantages over direct democracy. This fact was discussed at length in the jointly authored Federalist Papers.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html

History shows that this fact is rediscovered in each new generation through hard experience, on a bipartisan basis.

View on HN

But that doesn't mean republics can't have more direct democracy elements in them. For example I love the idea of citizens being able to create a referendum (in a certain state, I believe) in Germany. You still have a threshold, so people don't start creating one for all sorts of crazy ideas, but this is a great example of how citizens can help improve the laws in their countries. I think this referendum is usually added to the next election.

Such system obviously need to be fined-tuned to avoid having the population "abuse" them, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be pursued. I think they can be great additions to any democratic republic.

For conflicting evidence, I would point to the California initiative process, which is the reason California's government is nonfunctional and almost bankrupt right now.

California's government is nonfunctional and almost bankrupt right now because California is a One-Party State, and that party likes to buy itself votes with other people's money and then get people like you to blame everything wrong on someone else.

Give the Entitled Party credit: they've destroyed the state's finacial situation, but hey, they've got a total lock on the state. So its all been a big success on the one thing that counts.

California Republicans are essentially as bad as California Democrats, at least on the local level where Republicans sometimes win. I'd personally take Washington State Democrats over virtually any politicians in California. Politicians and voters in California are just terminally insane.

This is an extremely simplistic and inaccurate view of California's political problems, which are in fact in large part related to initiatives that passed through California's direct democracy process. Proposition 13 is among the most significant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978...

California became a one-party state in 2012. Prior to 2012, it was very much a two-party state, and the problems date as far back as the 1990s, when it was still considered a swing state.

Another poster has said the same thing, but it's worth repeating: take a long hard look at California first. We have that here and it hasn't really worked out very well. It would be worth your while to visit CA in the month before an election, and look at the incredibly low quality of the political advocacy here (bullshit 30 second TV attack ads on every conceivable topic). The ballot pamphlet mailed to all California voters lays out the text of all proposed laws as well as arguments for and against, mentioning sponsor and source. Hardly anyone reads the whole ballot pamphlet.

California is much, much too big for direct democracy to have a Hope in hell of working. Representative democracy has enough problems running it. California is too big for it is not a killer argument against direct democracy.

Well it sort-of works, just not all that well. I don't buy the size argument because the same pros and cons exist at the municipal and county level - some stupid propositions do well, some smart ones do poorly, too few people are clear on exactly what they're voting for.

none of that is isolated to CA by any means

"...this fact"? The only fact here is that the thing you're claiming is a fact actually isn't.

By the way, your celebration of this policy change is especially ironic considering the United States empire is completely buckling under the enormity of its failure as we speak. Right, we're "re-discovering the efficiency of representative democracy" by decreasing accountability...

America's governance system is very complex but it's hardly worth calling democracy in any meaningful use of the term. Money buys political results. Americans overwhelming see this to be the case. The state is made up of only the upper class and exists to serve the interests of the upper class. They run it, not the people in general.

America is not a democracy. It is a republic. The states are also republics, though feature some democratic traits, i.e., the initiative process.

When was the last time direct democracy was actually tried? I can't think of any examples. I don't disagree with your conclusion; any direct democracy substantially above the Dunbar number is likely to have a fairly short period of mob rule followed by adopting some other form of governent once the civil war/rioting stops.

We have been furnished a more perfect example of democracy than the USA though, one that's a lot closer to a direct democracy, that works wonderfully. And they're not joking when they talk about the people being sovereign.

All hail Switzerland!

When I look across the first world, the US government doesn't stand out to me as the best. In fact, it does stand out to me as one of the worst (at least in my personal experience). So I don't know how much should I care what men said who, IMO, have been proven wrong.

I clicked, and I see a long list of papers. Which one is the relevant one to this topic? I'd like to read them all, but can't afford that much time right now...

It's worth reading them all--in order is fine, so start with #1. There is no rush; they've been around almost 250 years already.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com