Obvious answer: Because that’s what we elect our congresscritters to do.
I know. But there are certain issues that are so polarizing (gun control, gay marriage), it seems the most democratic thing to do is let the people vote on the issue.
Quite simply, because there’s no mechanism in the Constitution whereby to conduct a federal referendum. You’d need to amend the Constitution to make it possible - and in this political climate, you wouldn’t be able to get Congress to pass an amendment declaring that puppies are good and Darth Vader is a big meanypants.
On the whole, I think referenda are a bad idea because of your “obvious answer”.
We elect people to consider all sides of difficult issues and then make a decision. That’s their job: think about it a lot, read up, discuss option, make a decision. It’s not the job of the population to read up, understand all the pros and cons, understand the consequences of the decision etc. Even if they had the capacity to do it they wouldn’t have the time because they already have a different day job.
Look at Cameron letting the population decide on whether to stay in the EU: I’m sure they all have opinions, but they just don’t have the knowledge, understanding or background to make these decisions. Their opinions are ruled by idiotic lies such as the persistent story of the EU ruling the size of cucumbers. Unless you devote all of your time to understanding the history of the EU, understanding what the EU actually does and doesn’t do, what we can expect from the EU, economics in the EU, which money goes where, in what ways do we pay in what ways do we profit, in what ways do we have influence, in what ways are we “giving up power to Brussel”, why that would even matter, what can we expect for the future etc etc, you just shouldn’t get to decide something of this magnitude. You get to vote for people you think will make the right decision, and for the people you trust will inform themselves on the subject. But ask the average person on the street: they’re all against Europe, but they know nothing about Europe. Nothing. All they know is Europe is bad because all cucumbers have to be the same size.
Wasn’t it Sir Winston Churchill who said
“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for … direct democracy.” 
Congress could authorize a non-binding referendum through ordinary legislation, but the states would have to conduct like they do other federal elections. A binding referendum would require a constitutional amendment; which I think is a very bad idea. Although I could get on board with subsituting a popular vote for approval by state legislature or state conventions in the current process, while keeping the 3/4 supermajority of states. Allow popular inititives like California does on the federal level would be a fucking nightmere.
Speaking as someone who lives in California I agree. The fact is, the vast majority of people are not qualified to make this sort of decision; law and governance are not their field of expertise, and they don’t have a staff of experts working for them who can make up the difference. You end up with lots of stupid laws passed by people who don’t know what they are doing.
Besides the “nightmare” scenario already mentioned (I live in CA, too), many of these controversial federal issues are controversial wrt the federal government can intervene in the first place. So we’re back to the SCOTUS in any case. That would be the case with your two specific examples.
I could see a provision that might allow a referendum that results in a super majority to force congress to act, but it would have to be something like 75% of the population.
San Diegan here…and, yep. It would increase the influence of advertising money on legislation! The last damn thing we need!
If we’re going to sell out, let’s sell out: we’ll issue shares of stock in U.S. Legislation, Inc., and the biggest shareholders get votes pro rata. (This, by the way, is not actually the worst possible form of government, given that very rich people have some serious interest in stability, law, peace, etc. It would certainly solve the deficit spending problem!)
Because democracy doesn’t work. It follows the most popular path, not the best one.
Also, I got shit to do. I can’t read up on everything. It’s not like democracies of antiquity where my income was from land and trade rather than a salary, and anyway I could have slaves do all the actual work while I hung out, and I had the time and energy to become fully informed on all the important issues.
My representative can do that without taking time away from his job because it (nominally) is his job, and because he has a staff to summarize everything for him
I agree, but I’m not talking about complex issues here. I sure as hell don’t want the general populace deciding on things like the sequester or the debt ceiling.
I’m talking about simple issues like gun control, gay marriage etc..
But I digress. That’s some what of a slippery slope I suggest there.
What world is it which you live that gun control or gay marriage are “simple issues”?
From a historical standpoint, the reason that decisions such as this are not made and imposed at the federal level stems from the fact that the United States was intended to be a federation of ostensibly soveriegn states, and not a democracy in any modern sense. This is apparent not only from correspondance between the founders and writings in the Federalist Papers, but also from the original construction of the federal system of governance, in which only the lower house of Congress is elected via popular vote, whereas the upper house was originally appointed at the discresion of each state, and the President was elected by electors that were typically appointed by the governer or head of the leading political party of the state. This ensured that while “the people” had a voice and certain unique abilities, such as impeachment of the President, the Senate represented the interest of the states at a national and international level, and the President was the “head of heads” of the individual states as well as the head of government and head of state for the US as a whole. Subsequent changes to the Constitution and interpretation thereof have, for better or worse, changed this organization to be more in line with a representative democracy, albeit with senators and representatives doing more to represent corporate and special interests than that of individual constituants.
From a practical standpoint, this allows individual states to reflect the actual culture of the state and region rather than be dominated by the mass of the population, and therefore gives rise to initially unpopular progressive movements that may otherwise be retarded by cultural inertia. A recent example of this are homosexual rights in civil uniions and same-sex marriage, which were not even on the cultural radar twenty years ago, but because a few states like Hawaii and Massechusetts led the charge it is now discussed as a serious consideration in many states. It also allows us to assess both the legality and efficacy of various proposed policies on a regional level. We can see, for instance, that access to birth control and selective abortion correlates strongly with higher rates of literacy and employment, or that gun control and harsh sentancing initiatives show weak if any correlation with reductions in crime.
There are, of course, counterexamples. The one that comes immediately to mind is civil rights; it is unquestionably the case that had the federal government not interceded, the campaign for equal treatment under the law for Negros in Southern states would have seen even more resistance, and it is possible that such equivalency still would not be in effect today. Of course, there is still a great cultural divide, and it may well be that intercession by the federal goverment has fueled resentment toward blacks, and has certainly given apparent validity (in the minds of some) to the delusion that the Civil War is still taking place.
Ultimately, I find myself closer to the viewpoint espoused by Hereshele Ostropoler; that while democracy is a good system to ensure that the majority of people feel that they have the ability to exercise participation in the franchise, as a means of governance democracy lacks decisiveness and the ability of the electorate to understand the nuances of complex issues (which both gun control and gay marriage certainly are). We are taught from early age that the notion of democracy is inarguably the best form of government, that it ensures freedom and liberty, and limits corruption and repression.
The reality when examined under harsh light is that a democracy is only as free and legitimate as the population cares for it to be, and that democracies can routinely turn to denial of basic rights for disfavored classes of people or represent only the interests of one small but influential group of people. Fortunately, the Founders considered this as well and added the Supreme Court as a check against the most egregious transgressions upon liberty and well-being, and while one can readily point to particular cases where SCOTUS rendered decisions that did not emphasize free and fair, in the aggregate they have generally defended the basic principles laid out in the Constitution. The best thing we can say about democracy is that as poorly as it works, it still works better than most systems of governance for the longest demonstrated duration, whereas monarchies and benevelent dictatorships such as Elizabethan England, while often effective at governance, are so dependent upon personality that they rarely endure in strength and innovation beyond two or three generations, often suffering internal conflict during times of transition. Democracies, on the other hand, tend to have more orderly transitions (relatively speaking) and a continuity of progress, largely because people believe that their interests are rerpesented.
Stranger
Another problem with initiatives: He who writes the question wins.
Not to hijack the thread, but if you ask, “Do you support banning high powered military-style assault weapons with 100 round magazines?” you get an answer of “yes.” If you ask, “Do you support more effective enforcement of existing gun laws or the enactment of new gun laws?” then support for stricter enforcement wins.
If you ask, “Should trashy little whores be able to have abortions whenever they want?” the answer is “no”. If you ask if women should be able to control their reproductive health choices, the answer is “yes.”
States have a problem with this and sometimes contradictory ballot initiatives get enacted. People simply are not able to vote directly on issues. That’s why we hire people to do it for us.
Excellent post. Thanks Stranger
When, I said simple, I meant that these are issues that you don’t have to be good at math, or know the nuances of how taxes effect revenue, job growth, etc…
But as you point out in your post, there is a lot I didn’t take into consideration.
Sure - except those are poll type questions. If the people were voting on laws, they’d have the exact wording of the actual law to vote on.
But the laws read like poll questions as well. If an abortion restriction were being voted upon, the proposed law is not called:
The Reproductive Rights Restriction Act of 2013.
It is called something like:
The Unborn Child Protection Act of 2013.
Catchier, more positive.
Possibly. But the actual language would still be there for all to see and debate before voting on it.
That has to be the funniest (and most absurd) single sentence I think I’ve ever read in almost 15 years of reading the SDMB.
“simple issues”… hahahahah. That’s awesome.
Simple in the sense that you could easily put out a single law with a “yes or no” vote. Shall we let gays marry? Yes or no?
As opposed to, say, a budget or tax code.
“The masses are asses.”
I don’t trust “the people” to decide what cola is better, much less some question of impact.
In the words of Will Rogers - “Sometimes a majority just means all the fools are on the same side.”