And that’s a positive? People don’t even read the manual on the second-most expensive thing they own (their car), and you think that they’ll actually read the legalese text of a proposed law?
Lobbyists and interest groups will get on TV, radio and the Internet and tell people what they want them to think it means, and when it turns out that it doesn’t actually mean that their cover will be that the public had the opportunity to read it for themselves and it’s not their problem.
No. I didn’t say I support the idea.
It isn’t their problem though.
But you do have to be good at math and finance in order to really understand the implications of a decision on each issue. To wit:
Gun control: the default assumption by most advocates is that fewer guns, or more controls on firearms equates to less crime. However, even a cursory review of crime statistics vis à vis imposition of restrictions on gun purchases and ownership shows only very weak trends (often no identifiable or even apparently negative trends). Does this mean that gun control is not useful or effective? Well, not necessarily. It may just be that the particular provisions are not well laided out or are unenforceable. Instead of banning bayonet lugs and high capacity magazines it might make more sense to impose restrictions on ammunition purchases or more tightly regulate gun shows. However, without breaking down the statistics into representative models that can be tested and validated we cannot understand why and how gun control measures do or do not work. This is clearly beyond the capability of the average person, or even a technically trained person who is not an expert in statistical methodology.
Gay marriage: Setting aside the moral issue of whether “marriage” is a basic human right, there are a couple of very pragmatic reasons to support gay marriage that are of direct benefit to society as a whole. One is the revenue stream that comes from the wedding industry, but in terms of business growth and taxes. Take a look at estimated revenues from out-of-state gay couples who go to states where gay marriage is allowed, and the benefit is obvious. The other is that as it has become more acceptable, gay couples have come out of the closet and set up joint property and custody of offspring, which also affords the unfortunate but regular occurance of severance of the union. We have long recognized the benefits of marriage in terms of affording a legal framework for determining division of property and assuring support of children. To deny this in the case of homosexual unions just means more difficultly and less assurance that children will be taken care of. Again, assessing the specific impact of this requires a deep understanding of finance and law that is well beyond the average person.
When you say that these issues are “simple”, I think what you mean is that most people can give an emotional, off-the-cuff response to the question without consideration of the issues. This is exactly the kind of decision making that causes democracies to spiral out of control and/or persecute entire classes of people by abrogating civil rights and legal protection, and it is exactly for this reason that we have the original Bill of Rights and other Constitutional amendments which clearly (for the most part) delineate how the Constitution can be interpreted and the yardstick by which laws can be measured for suitability. See the original PATRIOT act (which the vast majority of legislators didn’t even bother to read) for an example of what happens people make kneejerk emotional responses to wide ranging legislative issues.
Legislators (at least good ones) will have people on staff who will use their professional expertise to assess the merit of proposed laws, or at least go out and find someone who is an authority to weigh in on this issue. There are also advisory agencies and private “think tanks” which provide critical analysis at a level that can be (presumably) understood by legislators. The Office of Technology Assessment and JASON advisory study group, which advised the US Congress on technology and security issues are examples of this, and a perusal of their studies (mostly available free online) shows high quality studies and metastudies on a variety of critical issues from terrorism and cybersecurity to space policy and the effects of solar weather on the US power grid. (Unfortunately, OTA was defunded as part of the Newt Gingrich “Contract With America”, and despite repeated calls by FAS, the Woodrow Wilson Center, and various members of Congress, the agency has not been re-established, leaving Congress without a unified means of evaluating technology issues.)
What you describe is a resolution that declares a position or establishes the basis for a motion. A bill or clause that would be voted into law has to have specific details and provisions for interpretation and implementation. It is the devil in those details in which legislators (and their hopefully expert advisers) deliberate and implement in a fashion that is consistent with the Constitution and/or least unfair to the nost people.
We can all agree (except for criminals) that a law that would disarm criminals would be valuable; the question is in how to implement such a law in an effective fashion that does not substantially infringe upon law abiding citizens. That, in turn, leads to interpretations of what it means to “substantially infringe” and to what degree the Constitution establishes the individual right to possess firearms, and whether such rights as they exist are as relevant and applicable today as they were when the Bill of Rights were drafted. The average public does not have the competence to understand the pertinent issues much less render a knowledgeable vote upon them. They can, however, vote for an elected representitive who has a stated position consistent with what the person believes, and with hope that the representitive will actually follow through as claimed.
The real shortfall in the system isn’t that people do not have individual and distinct influence in the process of drafting and voting on bills, but rather that special interests and political action committees have, by virtue of the campaign funding and support they provide, far more influence than even a large group of the electorate and can bias a representative’s position in a way that does not reflect or favor the general public. It is often suggested that campaign finance reform is a way to fix this particular problem, but that assumes that the problem is just a loophole in the campaign system and not a fundamenal problem with how candidates campaign and promote their agendas.
Regardless, a popular vote at the federal level upon individual laws would be unwieldy, would reduce the influence of minority groups, and would subvert the basic checks and balances that were established as part of essential core of the US republican form of government. I certainly don’t want Florida or Alabama weighing in on referendums on issues specific to California, and as much as I would like South Carolina to stop flying the flag of an illegal successionist state that stood for human slavery, I acknowledge that the state is soveriegn in its choice of idenifying symbols.
Stranger
Sure, why not? It’s not like elections anything, right?
Let it be known that I support the “Mandatory Verb Inclusion Act.”
I meant to say “It’s not like elections cost anything, right?” 
But if that’s true, it’s true no matter who is enacting them, Congress or the people through a referendum.
Be more careful next time - violation of the Mandatory Verb Inclusion Act are punishable by up to a year in jail and a $5,000 fine.
(bolding mine)Whereas violations of the Singular/Plural Noun Correction Act are punishable by two years in jail and a fine not to exceed $10,000.
Dammit.
No, that was repealed with the populist-based passing of the We Ain’t Gonna Care 'Bout Elitist Grammer Crap Act.
The Sentence Fragment Prohibition Statute will deal with people like you. :mad:
[sub]I realize that technically “Dammit” incorporates a verb and noun and can be argued is not a sentence fragment, but we’ll let the courts sort that out.[/sub]
If I recall correctly, that one didn’t pass because your base didn’t care enough to go vote.
We THOUGHT we voted for something. Shit. What day was the election again?
Hooty Owl says, "Give A Shit-Don’t ‘Dammit’!
Bryan, just reply with your own “Dammit” and hide your head in shame too.
But it is a Congressperson’s job to understand and explore the details and implications of the bill, and they have a paid staff and supporting government advisory organizations like MITRE and Federally Funded Research and Development Centers to provide analysis and assessment. The typical voter–even one that is generally well-informed–simply doesn’t have access to this kind of information and analysis, nor the time to critically assess proposed bills on more than one or two issues.
A public vote on resolutions would carry no more weight than a public petition; probably less, because realistically a lack of voter turnout would be reflected as general apathy, and in the case of non-binding resolutions (which are the bulk of resolutions) does not compell Congress to do anything. I think we would not want the population voting on procedural resolutions regardless, as this would lead to even more deadlock than the current process.
Stranger
I agree completely.
The main problem with the idea of a federal referendum is that it totally, absolutely and completely short circuits our system of government.
The US is a Federal system composed of 50 sovereign states. Which means that ultimately the federal government’s purpose is much the same as the Constitution, which is to regulate the interaction and what-not between the various States, and between those States and the Federal government. That’s ultimately why we have the Senate, and why House members are elected from the various States, not at-large, or from districts that cross state lines. It’s also why we have the electoral college- the States elect the president directly, not the people.
It’s the States that gave/give power to the Federal government, not the other way around, and a LOT of (most?) people get that backward. The Federal government exists at the sufferance of the States, not the other way around.
That’s why a Federal popular referendum doesn’t make sense; we already have a Federal referendum of sorts- it’s what gets called into play to ratify amendments to the Constitution.
Now all we need to do is get them to not suck at their jobs.