In the modern context, it is almost impossible to achieve a perfect direct democracy. Unlike in the age of the Athenians, the general population of the United States is not limited to a concentrated geographic region, and the economic system is not a simplistic as it was then. Because of these factors, the representative model is the only viable form of democracy possible for a modern global power such as the US. Furthermore, instances of direct democracy present in the current US political system, the primary example being referendums and initiatives, have proven to be failed experiments of the directly democratic legislative process.
Referendums and initiatives have become increasingly utilized in the past decade to shape policy across the US. Referendums and initiatives differ slightly, with a referendum being a vote from the general public on recently passed legislation, and an initiative being where a new bill is put on the ballot for the general public to vote. Referendums function to use the popular vote to either confirm or veto the ruling of the state legislator whereas an initiative bypasses the legislator completely.
Proponents assert that initiatives and referendums cede power of the political elites back to the people. This ensures the state constitution and any legislation passed is reflective of the constituents’ opinions, regardless of the balance between parties in the legislator or any external influence from lobbyists on the district representatives. Originally developed in the Progressive Era, the goal was to prevent the states from being “in the pockets of wealthy interests” (NCSL).
Referendums and initiative are often criticized as undermining the intentions of the representative political system. It promotes the rule of uneducated constituents on nuanced legislation they have neither the time nor willingness to understand the implications of. Getting signatures for referendums or initiatives to appear on the ballot is most often be a money game, as campaigns to promote the issue at hand are central to a successful initiative. The power is not, as it turns out, going to the people—the power is going to private corporations.
Large corporations with a vested interest in a given piece of legislation can easily fund a campaign to have legislation overturned in states where this is permitted. In 2016 alone, corporations across the US poured over a billion dollars of funding into ballot initiatives advantageous to their industry. Food regulations were repealed, gas taxes slashed, and wildlife habitats violated as a result of this. With “policy stakes in the billions” for these companies, initiatives are used to bypass the entire legislative process (NCSL).
It is important to note, however, that referendums and initiatives are not part of the federal legislative process. If this were to be applied in the national context, the results could be disastrous. We’ve already seen the impact of Congressional lobbyists in skewing the public opinion on federal legislation. If the direct democracy seen in the referendum and initiative process were extended to the federal level, the careful dynamic of checks and balances would be disrupted and the formerly separated powers concentrated in the hands of the collective hands of citizens and corporations.
It’s easy to idealize the direct democracy from the golden age of Greece, but seen even in the constrained, state level context of initiatives and referendums, direct democracy has proven detrimental to the representation of US citizens. Despite idealistic theories of direct democracy as egalitarian representation, the referendum and initiative experiment has shown that this would only amplify the current corruption of the politics by corporations. Direct democracy would not be a rule of the people as one would hope, but rather a rule by corporation, where public good is secondary to profit margins.
— Julia Lotterer
Word Count: 600
Sources: http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/chart-of-the-initiative-states.aspxh
The West in the Pre-Modern World 
I too believe, in theory, that evaluating situations on a case-by-case basis would have been the fairest way to grant citizenship to metics in Athens. I can imagine, however, that it would have been quite difficult to pool the resources to execute such a system. It is interesting to imagine that type of system in America. I think the main difference between that system in America and Athens is that America has relatively strict immigration laws compared to Athens. A case-by-case evaluation would be so difficult in America because we have such strict immigration laws and a fairly weak border. There is a large amount of illegal immigration because it is easy to illegally cross the border instead of legally obtaining a visa, and this is a very backwards system. It would be much more practical for America to promote legal immigration by increasing border security and making the legal immigration process less burdensome. With more legal immigration, the US could keep track of immigrants more effectively and evaluate people like Dreamers on a more case-by-case basis for citizenship.
-Andrew Mitchell
179 words
LikeLike