Direct Democracy

In the unify States, direct land takes its close evident form in suffrage curtain raisings. According to the president of the Initiative and Referendum Institute, M. Dane Waters, a version of this do was state to birth existed as early as the 1600s in New England. The pr coifice then was for proposed ordinances to be placed on the agenda to be discussed by the whole town and later approved by voting on them during their town meetings.However, Dane Waters continued, voter turnout chess opening as it is known frontwardswith started during the 1900s specifically in 1978 when Proposition 13 reduced the property taxes in California from 2. 5 percent to 1 percent. That California opening move resulted to limitations in the property taxes of 43 states and a reduced rate in the income taxes in 15 states (Cato Policy Report). A Washington Post columnist, David S.Broder described vote inaugurals as a tool designed to en commensurate the plenty to straighta mien write laws and i n the appendage, check the influence being wielded by pursuit groups in the legislative move. Unfortunately, Broder explained, the inaugural process is flawed since the opinion of those who argon in disagreement is not being hear. Because of this defect, he maintained, statutes approved d adept vote initiatives argon not being subjected to checks and balances, effectively robbing the minority of their proficient to be heard.Broder argued that this neutralizes the intent of the founding fathers (Cato Policy Report). The chairman of the Cato Institute, William A. Niskanen, disagreed. He unhappy that the initiative process is rattling a system of checks and balances since it regulates the power of legislatures. In other words, it does not weaken the Ameri behind system of giving medication. Dane Waters back up the view of Niskanen. He maintained that ballot initiatives were not imaginet to introduce contrary changes in the American system of g all overnment but to enric h it.In position, he said, even the founding fathers had recognized its wisdom. To prove his point, he quoted James Madison, one of the founding fathers, who said that As the mountain be the only ordered fountain of power, and it is from them that the Constitutional Charter under which the several(prenominal) branches of government handgrip their power is derived, it seems strictly consonant to the re exoterican theory to recur to the self homogeneous(prenominal) original authority whenever it may be necessary to en braggart(a), diminish, or new-model the powers of government (Cato Policy Report).Ellen Ann Andersen, in OUT OF THE CLOSESTS & into the Courts, demonstrated how a ballot initiative works. In her search for a suitable illustration, she decided to look at the effects of the initiative process on the civil reforms of lesbians, braves and bisexuals (lgbs). Her decision was baaed on the f do that until 1993, the focus of approximately 60 percent of all ballot initia tives in the country was the civil rights of lgbs.She therefore concentrated on the most famous of these initiatives Amendment 2 which was approved by the voters in Colorado in 1992 (Andersen). Amendment 2 was sparked by a proposed ordinance on human rights which was heard by the Human Rights Commission of Colorado Springs in 1991. The end desire to prohibit discrimination of any kind based on bunk and color, their religion and creed, their national origin and ethnicity, their age, marital lieu, their sexual orientation, or their disabled condition. It immediately encountered stiff opposition mostly from big fundamentalist Christian groups which included the biggest Christian radio ministry in the country the Focus on the Family. Due to the relentless assault that they made against the proposed ordinance, it was finally pounded in the city council by a vote of 8-1 (Andersen). Things did not end there, however. The defeat of the proposed human rights ordinance started a state wide cause against gay rights which culminated to the inning of Amendment 2.A group named Colorado for Family Values (CFV) was organized at the behest of three individuals, viz. Tony Marco, an anti-gay activist David Noebel, head of anticommunist Summit Ministries, and Kevin Tebedo, who was the son of Maryanne Tebedo, a senator of the state of Colorado. CFV was able to establish links with national conservative organizations. It obtained the assistance of the National lawful Foundation in drafting Amendment 2 and used the handbook which was written by a lawyer who represented the Concerned Women for America as a guide for its efforts to promote the amendment.The proponents of Amendment 2 appealed to the moral values of the people and capitalized on their lack of adequate knowledge about crotchet as they painted gays and lesbians as a hazard to society. It distributed a bulletin which alleged that Lately, America has been hearing a lot about the subject of childishness sexual abuse. This terrible epidemic has scarred countless young lives and finished thousands of families. But what militant homosexuals arrogatet indispens readiness you to know is the large role they play in this epidemic.In fact, pedophilia (the sexual molestation of children) is actually an accepted part of the homosexual community (Andersen) CFV also state to the people of Colorado that homosexuals represented a great danger to the overall fountainheadness of the community because they are the most relentless carriers of sexually transmitted diseases they are the most fertile breeders of diseases and that by the middle of the 1990s, hospital bed would be difficult to come by due to the large number of homosexuals who are infected with AIDS (Andersen).Black propaganda such as these, coupled with the findings of a jacket crown which was commissioned by the capital of Colorado Post which showed that 46 percent of respondents considered homosexuality to be morally wrong, 40 percent tolerated homosexuals, and 14 percent declared their neutrality, enabled the anti-gay sectors of Colorado to deal a crushing blow to the gay militants. The CFV pass also argued that lgbs should not be granted protected status or special(a) rights because they were not legitimate minorities having failed to satisfy the criteria set forth by Supreme Court decisions, namely1. A group lacking(p) true minority rights must show that its discriminated against to the point that its members cannot live in average income, get an adequate education, or enjoy a fulfilling heathen life. 2. The group must be clear identifiable by unchangeable physical characteristics like skin color, gender, handicap, etc. (not behavior). 3. The group must clearly show that it is governmentally powerless (Andersen). In spite of the sting that caustic propaganda caused, it was the no special rights campaign slogan that dealt the greatest damage to the gay militants.Lawyer Jean Dubofsky said that The no s pecial rights slogan was very clever, curiously habituated a term when at least white males dont like affirmative action. The Amendment 2 people spent a lot of period talking about (how) you dont want gays and lesbians getting in front of you in line for credit lines or scholarships or college. Of course, that wasnt what Amendment 2 was all about overall, but thats the federal agency it was sold. People I talked with voted for it because they felt gay and lesbians should not get affirmative action (Andersen).In other words, Amendment 2 was ultimately approved by the voters of Colorado, thanks mainly to the underhanded campaign tactics employed by its proponents. Thus ended the political struggle waged by the gay activists. They were in spades beaten in the political battle. However, it turned out that they were far from accept defeat. Defeated in the political arena, they then turned to the legal battle. Amendment 2 proponents had only nine days to savor the taste of victory onward the lgbs petitioned the federal dominion court.A complaint was filed in the name of the succeeding(a)(a) Richard Evans (he was a former employee at the Mayors office of Denver who was open with his being gay) five other lgbs and a straight person male who was infected with AIDS. The cities of Boulder, Denver, and Aspen were also included as complainants because they had ordinances which protected the rights of lgbs which Amendment 2 would effectively nullify (Andersen). The second aspect of the initiative process (the legal battle) turned out to be a different librate altogether.Prepared even before the election day as a disengagement strategy, the complaint included several allegations. First, it argued that Amendment 2 violated the equal certificate clause of the constitution. Then it claimed that the amendment denied lgbs of their freedom of expression as well as association. Finally, it alleged that Amendment 2 was in violation of due process and the right to peti tion government for a redress of grievances (Andersen). The difference mingled with the political and the legal aspects of the initiative became immediately evident.Whereas the voters were the center of decision-making in the political exercise, the legal battle transferred the power to decide to the judges. A total of xiii judges heard the arguments whether Amendment 2 should be considered constitutional. One was a district court judge three were justices of the Supreme Court of Colorado and nine justices came from the United States Supreme Court (Andersen). The two sides presented the same arguments that they used during the campaign.The proponents of the amendment argued that they were plainly against granting homosexuals special rights and that they were interested in safeguarding the well-being of children and the family, and allow the state to allot its resources to assisting the legitimate minorities. The gay advocates, on the other hand, argued that in fact special right s as employed by the proponents of the Amendment was merely a red herring to mislead people and that the Amendment would effectively deprive them of their rights and constitutionally-guaranteed protection.They further claimed that Amendment 2 was only motivated by the hostility of its proponents towards lgbs and that homosexuality was in fact not only a life-style choice but is equal to race and sexual orientation (Andersen). What happened, however, was while their arguments won for the proponents the battle for the ballot, the same arguments caused them to lose their case in court. Ironically, a dissenting judge claimed that the act of the majority justices from the Supreme Court in striking down the Amendment had been an act not of judicial judgment, but of political allow (Andersen).Direct stateThe assumption underlying the discussion on the initiative process is that the workout of remunerative petitioners is a harmful development reducing the quality of our democracy and p rivileging money over true commitment to causes that are put on ballot. However, this assumption is a questionable one, and counter tell apart is abundant.Therefore, this essay will have the following structure first of all, it will show little harms in employing paying(a) tinge-gatherers that are offset by possible benefits of such design of the initiative process, and, secondly, the essay will criticize the workability of the solutions offered in the concluding section of the chapter. The perceive danger in allowing compensable petitioners is that only causes that enjoy considerable fiscal support can play their bureau to the ballot. Another threat, as opponents of this insurance policy argue, is associated with the fact that it is devastating to the spirit of unpaid workerism and civic exponentiation.There is a view that paying petitioners riotous the touch sensation gatherer because it came to be seen as a sales job rather than as the precious province of the public-sp irited citizen (Ellis, 2002, p. 48). Thus, the motivating for mobilizing and piquant citizens becomes virtually irrelevant to policy-making process. However, there is little persuasive evidence that paid petitioners signify the death of grassroots and the advent of the greenback democracy. Issues that advance strong public pattern can recruit a fit number of volunteers to push their case through.There are several reasons why volunteer skin sensess drive will survive in the future. First of all, using volunteers in the qualification phase can help save money for the electoral contest. Secondly, volunteer petitioners ofttimes gather signatures with higher validity rates, thus the number of signatures needed decreases whenever volunteers are used. Thirdly, volunteer-based signature collect campaigns constitute a way to mobilize and inform citizens. Fourthly, volunteer signatures drive is a powerful public relations tool, since such initiatives usually enjoy compulsive publici ty (Ellis, 2002).Volunteer campaigns have potential to succeed only if a campaign issue can easily generate strong feelings among the public. Yet issues arousing strong public sentiment are few and far between more often, it is an interest of a smaller group of people that is at stake, but it is undemocratic to trim down the plea of such groups of citizens only because their case does not excite black Maria and minds of their fellow citizens. In the modern democracy, there are few deep appalling wrongs that need immediate remedy and can attract crowds of have-to doe with citizen, like the case of African Americans in the 1960s.In the modern democracy, incremental changes need to be made to accommodate different interests and to make their coexistence more in force(p) and pleasurable for all. Numerous notable initiatives, serving community interests best, made their way to the ballot thanks to paid petitioners. Furthermore, the expatriate on paid petitioners will affect differe nt states in different ways. It will create a dangerous disparity in the quality of the initiative process in states with smaller and bigger populations.For example, it will create considerable complications for signature gathering in such states as California, where the number of signatures that are necessary for an initiative to be put on ballot can be several times higher than in other states. It is especially relevant given the everyday life constraints on citizenship and civic participation. Consumerist ideology makes long work hours an imperative and leaves people with less time to participate in politics and community affairs. People volunteer in their leisure time, and leisure is a competitive sector.It is hard to expect a large number of citizens to sacrifice their forbear time for gathering signatures in favor of their cause, however powerfully they feel about it. Indeed, the main hurdle that most initiative proponents example is finding enough people willing and able to dedicate a large number of hours to gathering signatures (Ellis, 2002, p. 53). Moreover, there are legitimate concerns that the ban on paid petitioners will privilege people with abundant join of spare time over those possessing more financial resources. In fact, paid petitioners democratize the initiative process by making it more inclusive.Many citizens do not hold strong opinions on approximately issues, but it by no means indicates that these issues should be excluded from the democratic debate. There are issues that are hard to frame in the way that solicits a passionate positive or negative attitude. In addition, privileging people with spare time over those with money borders on classism. For example, unemployed citizens with a lot of spare time can recruit a large number of volunteer to campaign for a welfare reform, while middle-class businessmen do not have such time to petition for a tax reduction.In a democracy, all groups ought to have equal memory access to the m echanisms of democratic participation and should be allowed to make the best use of resources available to them to ensure such participation. Therefore, as Ellis (2002, p. 54) notes, the rise of paid petitioners and master copy signature-gathering firms promotes democracy by increasing the involvement of a wider diversity of groups. The ban on paid petitioners will not significantly decrease the role of big interests and money in the initiative process.A fact that is often overlooked by the opponents of paid petitioners concerns the evidence that recruitment, training, and coordination of volunteers mean considerable costs to an initiative sponsor, although volunteers work for free (Ellis, 2002). Moreover, the ban on paid petitioners will give an unfair advantage to organizations with better access to human resources. It would advantage firms that employed large numbers of people and would make it impossible for all but the most popular causes to exercise the right of direct democ racy (Ellis, 2002, p. 48).The opponents of paid petitioners also overlook the fact that signature gathering firms have a more professional approach to the initiative process. One of the possible advantages, as Ellis (2002) acknowledges, is that such firms have more experience in planning signature gathering campaigns and can offer a clear timeline for the process. However, there is another important advantage in employing signature gathering firms. Professionals working there can inform citizens more expeditiously by presenting information about the issue at stake in a more accessible and understandable way.Thus, the indirect benefit of using paid petitioners is greater awareness of the citizenry on a wider rank of issues. The proposal to ban paid petitioners also underestimates peoples ability to choose whether to sign a petition. It is argued that signatories to petitions do not express their veritable opinion but agree to sign them for a variety of reasons, among which are des ire to be rid of the solicitor or to help him take a crap a days wages (Register, 1913 in Ellis, 2002). However, citizens are often more aware and concerned than this notion assumes.Many of them refuse to sign petitions that contradict their convictions. If ignorance was the case, volunteer signature drives would be as futile as professional signature gathering firms. Having proven that the harms involved in the process of employing paid petitioners in the initiative process are often exaggerated, there is a need to critique the proposed solutions to the perceived crisis. Providing more information about signature gathering will have little effect, as citizens are already overwhelmed with information on public issues.Few would dedicate their time to studying booklets on how certain initiatives made their way to the ballot. There are cognitive constraints on the amount of information citizens can consume. Furthermore, few would have enough spare time to devote it to reading booklets with information on how umpteen volunteers and how many paid petitioners were employed to gather support for a certain initiative. The proposal to leave petitions with county registration officers can be dismissed on kindred grounds citizens do not have enough spare time to dedicate to public affairs.Valuing signatures collected by volunteers over those collected by paid petitioners is simply non-enforceable. Abandoning signature gathering altogether is also not a viable alternative, since the process of petitioning presents at least some checks on the power of large interests. Paid petitioners ensure that issues of at least some interest to at least some groups of citizens make their way to the ballot. In fact, it does not quite matter how issues are placed on ballot what matters most is the citizens ability to express their opinion about different initiatives in a popular vote.