When something is as important as this, why isn’t this put to a National Referendum? (Has there ever been a National Referendum?) - Jinx
Unworkable and ultimately impractical. Decisions on war are already made by Congress (only they can declare war, or approve a President’s desire for large-scale deployment) and that’s about as close to the people as such a decision needs to be.
Because we’re not a Democracy, we’re a Republic.
Besides, the Supreme Court would over-rule the vote, anyway.
Because it will be rejected by the public.
Short answer:
Well some countries do have refernda. The Labourites have promised one on adopting the Euro for example. There is no provision for or tradition of such votes in the United States?
Why is that? (Long answer.)
Well the US is a Republic, not a Democracy. What we mean by that is our Consitution is means of preventing majority (or mob) rule.
Perhaps a vote on such a war would be a Good Thing (although I doubt it very much). OK then, shall we then have a vote on a Northern or Southern strategy? Silly you say? I agree. The idea of having the people (or the mob) voting on what is basically a matter of technique seems quite dangerous.
If we allowed The People to vote on Every Darn Thing in our history we would have voted against Civil Rights in the 1960s, for the War in Vietnam and for a strict enforcement of a “no-bra” rule in the WNBA.
Going to war is a simple technical issue. Is it the best way to reach our national goals? Our national goals are set by a leadership that is elected by the people.
All in all it is a good (though imperfect) system. I can think of no example of sucessful government-by-referenda in history.
The theoretical answer, which isn’t perfect but offers food for thought, is twofold.
One, the US is a representative democracy. You elect people to make decisions for you based on their qualifications for that role (or the lack of qualifications on their opponent’s behalf). If you start deciding you want to make the decisions yourself, why bother with representatives at all? (yes, I know, it’s not a million miles from a “slippery slope” argument).
The second, and to my mind far more important argument against referendum usage, is that the general public are generally unable to make a neutral, long-term, “best for the country as a whole” decision, which theoretically is what the representatives are doing. I don’t want tabloid-reading White Van Man deciding whether Britain should adopt the Euro based on his dislike of “the Frogs”; I want full-time thought, paid economists and analysts. While that may be slightly exaggerated (and maybe a little patronising) do you really trust the public to make the best decision for the country as a whole? Do you trust them to make the personal sacrifice to educate themselves to fully understand the repercussions? Do you believe that they have access to full, objective details, and can understand those, and where necessary avoid media spin?
Aside: I’m confused by the use of “republic” and “democracy” as opposites - I always understood “republic” to indicate an absence of hereditary rule, not to mandate a particular electoral system. I saw no contradition in the idea of a “republican democracy”; how widespread is this use of a definition? Sure, not every individual votes on every issue, but that’s because it’s a representative democracy, rather than a “pure” democracy (the likes of which is arguably not remotely practical in the modern world).
Actually, we’re not a true Republic, either. We’re more of a hybrid Democratic Republic.
Because Bush wants to go kick Saddam’s ass so bad he can taste it, and I’d be amazed to think that the will or desires of the American people mean diddly-squat to him.
Except the ones who contributed to the Republican campaign funds, that is.
Well, a slight majority of Americans think that the situation in Iraq is worth going to war over, as of Jan 5 http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030113.asp
but the thing is, Americans have never used direct votes to decide to go to war or not, and things have turned out pretty well, so why change what works?
From living in California, which has referenda on just about everything, I would much rather vote to elect people to make these decisisons for me.
California doesn’t exactly have a great track record of approving wise pieces of legislation.
One of the biggest stumbling blocks to any national referendum plan also would be representation. Right now, Wyoming really likes having an equal say in the Senate about foreign affairs.
Wyoming won’t like it when it’s very small number of voters gets overwhelmend in a national referendum by Californians and New Yorkers.