State Legislatures Magazine: July/August 2000

Editor's Note: This article appeared in the July/August 2000 issue of NCSL's magazine, State Legislatures. To order copies or to subscribe, contact the marketing department at (303) 364-7700.

Instant Democracy for Everyone

Direct Democracy Movement
Practical Matters
Some Ideas About the Future

Task Force Concludes: Direct Democracy Is the Future

How Legislatures Can Co-opt Direct Democracy

Instant Democracy for Everyone

There are groups out there that are trying to co-opt representative democracy. Their plan is to use technology and the Internet to make legislatures a thing of the past.

By Brian Weberg

WELCOME TO CHRISTIANVOTE.COM.
THE POLL BELOW WILL GIVE YOU INSTANT RESULTS.
-from Christianvote.com
sponsored by the Christian Coalition of America

Look out now. Here it comes. Its called direct democracy (DD), and it's coming soon to a city and a state near you. It's not just the popular initiative, like 24 states already have. DD, as envisioned by many who promote it, is the initiative on steroids. Move over, you old institutions of representative democracy (RD), there's a new game coming to town. Well, really, an old game with a shiny new look made possible by technology and the Internet.

Dick Morris, former sidekick of President Clinton, is so convinced about the coming age of direct democracy that he's written a book about it and opened a Web-based portal called vote.com (the name of his book, too). It's a sure sign that DD is coming into vogue when wily insiders like Morris line up to cash in on the trend. Just as the Web has opened up commerce in new and accelerated ways, so too, proponents say, will the Internet open up democracy. We will name our own price on priceline.com, then click our own public policy on vote.com.

A hundred years ago, the Populists and Progressives promoted reforms to a system of representative democracy that they said had been subverted by special interests and cronyism. They offered solutions such as the direct election of U.S. senators, recall of elected officials and, of course, the initiative. Today, those reforms are taken-for-granted elements of many states' political landscapes. And in the recent past, a significant new reform has been added to the mix-term limits.

Our nation is about to engage again in a philosophical debate and probably a few political skirmishes about the future of its democratic principles, processes and institutions. America's tradition of representative democracy, so carefully crafted by the founding fathers, might be in the balance. Those who believe in and see the virtues of representative democracy will be on the defensive from the start. Those who promote direct democracy will have technology, and probably public opinion, on their side. And maybe fate. As Morris glibly asserts, "Whether direct Internet democracy is good or bad is quite beside the point. It is inevitable."

DIRECT DEMOCRACY MOVEMENT
Direct democracy means many things to many people. It is a movement that is both grassroots and, as the vote.com example demonstrates, inhabited by seasoned strategists.

To some devotees, it is the ultimate expression of personal and collective political freedom where each member of society participates fully in public decision making. An almost utopian aura pervades some of the literature. The Web-based Direct Democracy Online Project predicts "a superior form of government, in which the freedom and the happiness of all the citizens will be more secure than ever..." In radical and Web-gadabout Aki Orr's Direct Democracy Manifesto, he sees "a new system where every citizen can propose and vote on every political decision," which will "raise humanity to a higher level and will change not only society but also the individual."

Most direct democracy advocates are a bit more pragmatic. Generally, they call for the expanded use of the initiative at the local, state or federal levels (and a few call for global direct democracy). Many enthusiasts also support proportional representation. Stephen Neitzke's Direct Democracy League says there are "four functional parts" of DD: direct election of representatives, civic initiative, referendum and recall of elected officials. When all of these are in place, as they are in 11 states, according to Neitzke, citizens enjoy what he calls "modern authentic democracy."

Ted Becker is a political science professor at Auburn University and the voice of the Global Democratic Movement whose "explicit goal is to maintain a Web site that will help inform and synergize those who are interested in finding new and better ways to empower the citizens of modern, high-tech nations so that they may influence, or better yet, direct the major agendas, priorities and policies of their polities." Becker says that reforms like term limits "are the equivalent of new patches on a worn out tire." He advocates something called teledemocracy where communications technology merges with "citizen power" to "transform democracies into the next phase of their evolution."

The Initiative & Referenda Institute has a more mainstream and limited agenda on DD, and perhaps because of that, more relevance to what is happening in politics today. The institute aims "to inform and educate the public about the [initiative] process and its effects on the political, fiscal and social fabric of our society; and to provide effective leadership in litigation-defending the initiative process and the right of citizens to reform their government from career legislators who want to take it away." Its Web site offers a wealth of information on the status of initiatives and referenda in the states. The institute offers talking points in which it asserts that I&R are not a replacement for representative democracy, nor is it direct democracy. "It is simply an additional check and balance on those who are in power."

Former Alaska U.S. Senator Mike Gravel and his group Philadelphia II are pushing a direct democracy initiative that would, according to their Web site, "enable ordinary citizens to make laws and legislate policy in every government jurisdiction of the United States." Their plan would allow popular initiatives to qualify for the ballot in three ways: by legislative resolution, by citizen petition and by public opinion poll. In the latter method, a new federal agency called the Electoral Trust would oversee the management of the polling process. According to Gravel, "The Direct Democracy Initiative does not change representative governments-it seeks to bring people into a legislating partnership with their representatives in all government jurisdictions."

Over at Dick Morris' vote.com, visitors vote up or down on a slate of public policy issues. For example, on one day the lead question was: Should Same-Sex Couples Be Banned from Adopting Children? Voters are offered background information on the questions, including pro and con arguments. Vote.com then promises to send the results of the poll to relevant lawmakers. "When you vote on a topic listed on our site, we'll send an immediate e-mail to significant decision makers like your congressional representative, your senators and the president telling them how you feel." Morris believes that Internet-based opinion gathering and distribution is the wave of the future. He sees the Internet replacing traditional media-dominated information sources and becoming "the driving force in American political life, and the result is nothing short of a cultural revolution."

Although Dick Morris traditionally works the federal angles of government, he sees the Internet revolution coming to states, too. State legislatures, which Morris writes are "notoriously insensitive to the will of their constituents," will find that "voters will seize the right to make their own decisions through the Internet, just as they will do in national politics."

Also making a somewhat mainstream direct democracy-related play at the congressional level is USADemocracy, which counts among its advisory board the eclectic likes of James Carville, Ralph Reed, Geraldine Ferraro and Richard Galen, the executive director of GOPAC. At www.usademocracy.com visitors sign up for free membership that allows them to vote on congressional bills and also monitor their own member's voting record. Running tabulations compare on-line voting results to those taken in Congress and also break down the vote according to the user's state and district. And if you like, USADemocracy will forward your vote to your congressman.

VotingOnline Inc. takes the USADemocracy concept to the state level in Florida, and, funding permitting, perhaps to other states. Visitors to their site at www.statelegislator.com can see Florida bill summaries, chat about pending legislation and vote their preference on those bills. James Chapman, president and CEO of the two-person start-up operation, says he developed the site because "there never is a clear way to communicate with a legislator." Compared to the more radical direct democracy enthusiasts, Chapman's dream is pretty basic. According to his Web site's mission statement, his goal is to "provide a vehicle for constituents and legislators to discuss legislation over the Internet through the use of discussion boards and surveys."

The site opened with a media splash at the beginning of the recent session, and more than 500 users quickly signed on. Then the press coverage quieted down, and so did site registrations. During the entire session, only about 825 users joined. Chapman says he will do things a little differently next session. He has plans for developing statelegislator.com into a 50-state site where legislators and constituents compare thoughts and votes on pending legislation. He also has high hopes for bringing his concept to the county level.

Chapman and his Web site did not make a big impact on the 2000 Florida session. He admits he missed some opportunities and did not have enough money behind the effort. But the concept of www.statelegislator.com, with modifications and enhancements, could foreshadow one way that direct democracy passions and representative democracy traditions might merge effectively in the future.

Whether radical, moderate or mainstream, those who support various forms of direct democracy share common views on three key matters. First, most harbor dissatisfaction with or distrust of representative democracy. Says Becker, "All modern representative democracies have their arteries clogged. What is needed is quadruple bypass surgery." Second, direct democracy proponents look to the Internet as both the enabler and motivator of long suppressed public desire to participate in politics. Writes Neitzke, "The utility of computer nets for democracy is stark, simple and elegant." Finally, almost everyone in these camps agrees with Morris that the trend toward direct democracy is inevitable.

PRACTICAL MATTERS
James Madison, in his Federalist Paper No. 10, wrote the classic argument for representative democracy. His words serve as the foundation on which all defenders of our legislative institutions rest. In this discourse on the potentially destructive nature of "powerful factions," Madison concludes that "a pure democracy...can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction." He adds that "such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

Representative democracy, argues Madison, "opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking." Under a republican form of government, writes Madison, an "improper or wicked project will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State."

An equally spirited defense of representative democracy appeared recently on the bookshelves-Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist and political reporter David Broder's Democracy Derailed: Initiative Campaigns and the Power of Money. Although primarily an exposé on the initiative movement in America, Broder is clear with readers when he writes, "The argument of this book is that representative government is not something to be discarded quite so casually. We need to examine what really happens in direct legislation by initiative. And we must ask ourselves about the implications of a weakening of our republican form of government."

Broder minces no words in his concern about the popular initiative as it is used in contemporary politics. "No sooner had the concept of popular sovereignty been implanted in the political system than clever politicians realized that the key to power now lay in the manipulation of public opinion," he writes. Broder warns, "The initiative process ... threatens to challenge or even subvert the American system of government in the next few decades."

Broder echoes concerns raised by Alan Rosenthal in his book, The Decline of Representative Democracy. Rosenthal takes a more institutional look at state legislatures, but his conclusions are similar. In his introduction, Rosenthal writes, "...participatory democracy (which is not quite 'direct democracy') has been growing in strength at the expense of representative processes. Government no longer is conducted with the consent of the governed, according to the Federalist plan. It is conducted with significant participation by the governed, and by those who claim to speak for the public's interest, according to a more populist plan. Representative democracy, as the states had experienced it for several centuries, is now in decline."

No doubt, activists at the various direct democracy institutes and centers and movements find cause to rejoice at Broder's and Rosenthal's words. From their perspective, these authors are only confirming what direct democracy activists work for-the weakening or supplanting of the legislature and its processes.

On the other hand, those who seek to defend representative institutions and traditions have much to ponder. If Madison, Broder and Rosenthal are right, and if Morris and others also are right about the inevitability of certain trends, then state legislators, legislative staff and their small legion of defenders need to put on their reality hats and get to work. The representative democracy defenders need a strategy and realistic goals. As a practical matter, this may require state legislatures to adopt new ways to conduct their work and develop new ways to interact with the public.

SOME IDEAS ABOUT THE FUTURE
There seems to be little doubt about these things: The public doesn't have high confidence in their institutions of representative government. The public also is intrigued by more direct or participative forms of lawmaking, especially the initiative. As Broder points out in his book, "In every state I visited in my reporting, the initiative process was viewed as sacrosanct. In most of them, the legislature was in disrepute." Further, the Internet poses new opportunities and expectations for expanded public input into lawmaking and governance. Finally, there is a growing community of individuals and organizations ready to make good or evil out of the possibilities made available by this novel confluence of technology and changing public perspectives about democracy.

It also seems clear that the best and most effective advocates for and protectors of representative democracy will be the institutions themselves-the state legislatures, city councils and others. Neither Broder, Rosenthal nor the ghost of James Madison can carry this responsibility, although their roles are essential. Other champions of legislatures like former Wyoming U.S. Senator Alan Simpson, Maryland U.S. Senator Paul Sarbanes and former Indiana Congressman Lee Hamilton have, through their actions and words, played a role, too. But now it is time for legislatures to take a stand and adopt a strategy.

Who could have imagined only a few years ago that on-line, citizen "day traders," empowered by the Internet, would mobilize in such numbers that they would influence the rise and fall of major financial markets? We have seen how the passions of these investors have transformed Wall Street and contributed to sometimes radical swings in market indices. Does it take much, then, to imagine a future where public policy and government programs are whipped to and fro by similarly passionate yet fleeting factions?

The future probably will disappoint those who dream of a world without legislatures. And it also will come up short for advocates of Madison's ideal. We will land somewhere in the middle-a point where the public finds a comfortable balance of direct and representative routes to governance. State legislatures must take steps to help ensure that the balance is struck at a point that preserves key institutional values like deliberation, compromise and trust, and that allows citizens meaningful ways to practice their civic responsibility and express their political passions.

Task Force Concludes: Direct Democracy Is the Future

An NCSL task force recently completed a two-year project on the future of the state legislature. It concluded that direct democracy was a crucial variable in how state legislatures will look 25 years from now. The group developed four scenarios of the future, two in which direct democracy was heavily practiced by the public and two where direct democracy was not used very much. Almost everyone who has seen the scenarios, from legislative leaders to staff to lobbyists, agree that those with high direct democracy usage are most likely to reflect the world we will live in.

How Legislatures Can Co-opt Direct Democracy

Just as legislatures must strive to "change the public," as political scientist Alan Rosenthal says, so must they acknowledge and embrace, in practical and strategic ways, the public's real expectations and apparent zeal about technology and participation.

Legislatures should be willing to undertake internal reforms that make them more accessible and identifiable to the public. Here are some ideas about what those strategies might include:

Expand legislative Web sites to become on-line policy voting centers, like James Chapman's statelegislator.com. Such interactive legislative Web sites would connect citizens to legislators and legislation in political ways and provide more than the traditional elements, like bill status, committee schedules and member rosters. They might include legislator chat rooms, pro and con bill analyses, subject matter research links, voting records analysis, district-level customization options, and ticklers to users about impending legislative deadlines, bill introductions and other procedural matters.
Endorse and promote on-line voting systems for legislative elections. Public demand for this innovation is likely to swell. By taking the lead on this election reform, state legislatures will demonstrate a commitment to public participation and responsiveness.
Provide the public with legislative information. Make available voting records, meeting schedules, calendars, social events and other legislative records and activities.
Offer TV or Web-based access to committee meetings, floor sessions and other government events. These efforts are in place in many states, perhaps most notably through www.tvw.org in Washington.
Develop strong leaders who are recognized as spokesmen for the institution. It might be time to get past the fear of strong legislative leadership. The public connects with individual personalities, not institutions. Legislatures need visible leaders who carry, and are identified with, a positive institutional message.
Maintain a "high touch" legislature. High tech and its Internet tool are keys to connecting with citizens. But too much technology between legislatures and the public can be detrimental. The lure of technological solutions to citizen involvement is intoxicating. But virtual legislatures will fail. Citizens need personal contact with legislators, and legislators need personal contact with citizens. It is at this level of personal contact that legislatures establish their authenticity and best demonstrate their democratic virtues.
Extend the length of severe term limit provisions. This idea might stir some trouble. However, it is becoming clear that draconian term limits that allow only a few years of service do no service to anyone except those who wish to weaken the legislative institution. The public is beginning to get this message, too.
Develop a strong institutional ethic, not just strong ethics laws. No amount of citizen education can overcome the damage done by scandal or the ugliness of campaign-motivated attacks on people or the legislature. Legislatures should communicate to the public their position and commitment on the ethical conduct of members and staff. This does not require new laws, just new kinds of communication.

-Brian Weberg, NCSL

Visitor counts for this page.