Perfecting Direct Democracy
Direct Democracy
In identifying majority rule as the essential element that gave a government the “form” of a “perfect democracy”, John Locke used the term “perfect democracy” in the same way the term “pure democracy” is sometimes used to describe direct democracy.
In a direct democracy the citizens of a community, state, or nation vote directly as political decisions are made, with everyone having an equal vote, with the votes of the majority determining the form of the government, the “just powers” of the government, the laws that are enacted, and the public policies that are put in place.
Referendums and the Initiative
An election in which the people of a community, state, or nation vote directly to determine whether a proposed law or constitutional amendment is enacted or rejected is called a referendum. Referendums can be called by various methods: by a legislative body, according to mandates in a constitution, or by the people through the “initiative", which gives citizens the power to initiate and enact legislation, including constitutional amendments, without the involvement or approval of a legislature.
In a true democracy, the citizens of a community, state, or nation should be able to propose legislation through the initiative anytime it appears likely that a legislature has failed to enact legislation that is supported by most of the citizens. And legislation proposed through the initiative should be approved or rejected by a simple majority of voters in a referendum. Citizens should also be able to call veto referendums anytime it appears likely that a legislature has enacted legislation that does not have the support of most of the citizens. (With a simple majority required to reject such legislation.)
Perfecting Direct Democracy
Locke was clearly aware that, at the time he wrote, direct democracy was only possible among a relatively small group of people. He consistently used the terms “community” and “society” rather than “state” or “nation”.
At the time of our nation’s founding, direct democracy (with citizens meeting in the same place at the same time to make laws and other political decisions) was practiced in town hall meetings in some New England towns but was still not considered to be a realistic option for governing states or the nation. A system of representation was put in place in all the states and for the national government.
Abraham Lincoln once remarked that “Writing, the art of communicating thoughts to the mind through the eye, is the great invention of the world…enabling us to converse with the dead, the absent, and the unborn, all at distances of time and space.” The invention of the printing press and the establishment of public education made it possible for more people to become literate and gain access to the wisdom of the ages and a great deal of useful information and knowledge that is preserved in written materials.
Democracy has become a better form of government over time, and direct democracy has become a viable option for states and nations, as the result of most people becoming literate and citizens dispersed across a state or nation being able to share political ideas and information.
These advances made two powerful forms of direct democracy possible. The adoption of provisions for referendumsand the initiative in 23 states in America, and numerous countries in Europe, between 1898 and 1920 were important victories for democracy.
There are currently twenty-six states in America that have provisions for referendums and/or the initiative in their state constitutions. There is no provision for referendums or the initiative in the Constitution of the United States.
The main problem with referendums and the initiative, in the states that already have provisions for them, is that calling a veto referendum or putting a proposal on the ballot through the initiative is far more difficult than it should be. The details of the initiative process vary from state to state, but getting legislation passed through the initiative process is never easy. Gathering the required number of signatures is a significant challenge in every state. Election officials in most states with the initiative are empowered to preemptively reject signatures on petitions and it is not uncommon for a significant percentage of the signatures collected to be rejected for various (often unspecified) reasons. This effectively (and unjustly) increases the number of signatures required to get a proposal on the ballot. Educating voters about a ballot proposal typically requires raising millions of dollars, especially if there is opposition to a proposal from well-funded special interests.
Despite these difficulties, states with referendums and the initiative have been able to increase the minimum wage, expand Medicaid, repeal anti-worker so-called “right-to-work” laws, enact ethics laws, and pass other laws supported by the people but opposed by “representatives” who do not truly represent the will of the people.
Some politicians in states that have provisions for referendums and the initiative, unhappy with the occasional success of ballot proposals and veto referendums, have introduced legislation that would make it even more difficult to use the initiative. If these antidemocratic amendments are enacted, it will be a significant setback for democracy.
We need to fight off attempts to undermine and roll back democracy, but we need to do more than that. When it comes to defending democracy, an adage commonly associated with sports and warfare applies – “The best defense is a good offense.” We need to proactively promote democracy. We need to perfect direct democracy.
In 2011, the European Union made significant improvements to the initiative process. If one or more citizens of seven or more member states has an idea for a proposed piece of legislation, a commission helps them draft the proposal and citizens can “sign” initiative petitions electronically (online) by submitting statements of support. If a million citizens “sign” the petitions, the European Parliament is required to “consider” the proposal, but no referendum is conducted.
The system in place in the states within the United States that have provisions for the initiative is not as good in terms of drafting the proposal or gathering signatures. There is generally little or no help offered in drafting proposals and citizens cannot sign petitions online. The initiative process in place in America is better in terms of what happens when the required number of signatures are collected – a binding referendum.
To perfect direct democracy we need to combine the positive features of both the European and American systems. A commission should help draft proposals. Citizens should be able to sign petitions online. And when the required number of statements of support have been submitted, a binding referendum should be conducted, with every citizen having an equal vote and the votes of the majority determining whether a proposal is approved or rejected.
Perfect Democracy Amendments
In a true democracy, proposed legislation should be put on the ballot through the initiative (and approved or rejected by voters in a referendum) anytime it appears likely that a legislature has failed to enact legislation that is supported by most of the citizens of a community, state, or nation. Veto referendums should be called anytime it appears likely that legislation that does not have the support of most of the citizens has been enacted by a legislature.
The details of Perfect Democracy Amendments will vary from state to state and for the federal government, but will do one or more of three things:
- Perfect Democracy Amendments will extend the use of referendums and the initiative to the federal government and to the states that do not yet provide for them.
- In states that already have provisions for referendums and the initiative, Perfect Democracy Amendments will make it easier to call referendums and use the initiative.
- In states that already have referendums and the initiative, Perfect Democracy Amendments will repeal any anti-democratic provisions that make direct democracy less democratic. (Super-majority requirements, fees for filing petitions, et cetera.)
There are two ways to make it easier for citizens to call veto referendums or use the initiative to put proposed legislation on the ballot: (1) Reduce the number of signatures required; or (2) allow citizens to sign petitions electronically through Online Accounts for Politically Active Citizens.
Citizens of the European Union have been able to sign initiative petitions online since 2011, by submitting Statements of Support. A system in place in Arizona enables citizens to electronically sign the petitions candidates must circulate to get on the ballot. A system in place in Boulder, Colorado gives citizens the option of signing initiative petitions online.
Not only is signing petitions online easier and more convenient, but when people sign statements of support securely online, every statement of support can reasonably be considered legitimate. There is no need for election officials to check signatures and no signatures are preemptively rejected.
Research on Direct Democracy
One argument likely to be made against making it easier for citizens to call veto referendums and use the initiative is that voters are not as well-informed or knowledgeable as their elected “representatives”.
Research conducted by Benjamin I. Page and Martin Gilens and shared in their book Democracy in America? What Has Gone Wrong and What We Can Do About It, refutes the idea that voters are not well-informed when voting on issues. They found that “public opinion is generally deliberative – it generally reflects the best available information and the values and interests of the citizenry.” As a result, when citizens vote directly, “Collective preferences tend to…reflect the underlying needs and values of the whole body of citizens, in light of the best available information from experts and commentators.”
The best thing we can do to fix “what has gone wrong” with democracy in America is to build on the successes of the populist and progressive movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. We need to build on their successes by extending the use of referendums and the initiative to the federal government and to the states that do not yet provide for them, and make it easier to call referendums and use the initiative in the states that do provide for them. We need to enact Perfect Democracy Amendments!
Why Direct Democracy is better than Representative Democracy
Direct democracy has several distinct advantages over a system of representation, even when a system of representation is reasonably democratic.
Power shared broadly and equally minimizes corruption.
Direct democracy is sometimes referred to as “pure democracy” is because it is more difficult to corrupt a government when power is distributed equally among all the citizens of a community, state, or nation and exercised by citizens voting directly.
Experience has consistently demonstrated the truth of Lord Acton’s well-known observation that “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” With that being the case, distributing power as broadly and equally as possible is the best way to eliminate, or at least minimize, corruption in a government. It is far easier to corrupt presidents and governors, judges, or a majority of the members of a legislative body than it is to corrupt a majority of the politically active citizens in a community, state, or nation.
It is possible to make direct democracy less than pure. The most common ways that direct democracy is corrupted are by posing questions put on the ballot in a deceptive or confusing manner, by imposing super-majority requirements for adoption of proposed legislation, or by limiting who can participate in elections. We need to do whatever is necessary to prevent such impurities from corrupting direct democracy.
Direct democracy is more likely to promote the common interest
In his system of classifying governments, Aristotle divided each of the three basic alternatives for how many people share power (one person, the few, or the many) into “true forms” and “perversions”. The “true” forms were those in which those who shared power governed with a view to the common interest. Governments were “perversions” of the true forms when those sharing power promote their own interests over the common interest.
The most important finding in the research conducted by Gilens and Page is that “Majority rule…tends to produce public policies that benefit the largest number of people and promote the common interest.” Common sense and observation confirm that finding.
Within that framework and those definitions, direct democracy is more likely to be a “true democracy”. (Serving the common interest.) And representative democracy is more likely to be a “perversion” of democracy. (Serving private interests.)
We (the People) are the Best Guardians of Our Rights
The Declaration of Independence states – as “self-evident” Truths - that we are “endowed” by our “Creator” with “certain unalienable Rights” and that the primary reason we form governments is to secure our rights. Those “truths” are irrelevant to the false friends and true enemies of democracy who want governments to serve private interests and assist them in putting profits ahead of people.
The false friends and true enemies of democracy have had a great deal of success in corrupting Congress and state legislatures. They have been less successful in corrupting referendums, especially when the proposal on the ballot relates to protecting our rights. Direct democracy is the form of government most likely to secure and protect our rights because we (the people) are the best guardians of our rights.
Referendums shift the focus from politicians to issues
Elections in America are dominated by money. Candidates (and the political parties and PACs that support them) compete with other candidates (and political parties) by raising massive amounts of money. Far too much of the money raised is spent on advertising that either attacks opposing candidates or promotes candidates with glittering generalities. Attack ads saturated with misinformation, disinformation, and outright lies have proven to be very effective within a duopoly (a system dominated by two political parties). It is easy to demonize or vilify a politician. That is not an effective strategy for winning a referendum on a ballot proposal.
When citizens vote directly on ballot proposals, “winning” the election requires persuading politically active citizens that the proposal on the ballot should be supported (or opposed). Misinformation, disinformation, and outright lies regarding the measure may still be a problem, but attacking the people who may be voicing support or opposition is considerably less effective than constructively debating the issue on the ballot.
Referendums shift the focus of political activity to meaningful discussions of issues. The debates and discussions that take place when a proposal is placed on the ballot are routinely much more detailed, nuanced, and constructive than the “debates” that take place in Congress, state legislatures, or as part of elections.
The most legitimate way to obtain the “consent of the governed”
The Declaration of Independence states that the “just powers” of a government are derived from “the consent of the governed”. That consent is most properly obtained through referendums with every citizen having an equal vote.
Congress and state legislatures do not “represent” the people
While John Locke clearly believed that direct democracy was the best form of government, he did acknowledge the right of a majority of the members of a community, state, or nation to “put the power of making laws into the hands of a few select men” but described that form of government as an “oligarchy”.
Locke’s choice of the term “oligarchy” to describe a government where “the power of making laws” is delegated to “a few select men” is significant. In his system of classifying governments, Aristotle used the term “aristocracy” to describe the “true form” of “government by the few” (when the few who share power govern “with a view to the common interest”) and the term “oligarchy” as the “perversion” of “government by the few” (when they govern “with a view to private interests”).
Given the fact that Locke was clearly familiar with and referencing Aristotle’s system of classifying governments in proposing his own system of classification, his use of the term “oligarchy”, indicated a belief that people are making a mistake when they “put the power of making laws into the hands of a few select men”. Experience and research have confirmed that belief.
Gilens and Page found that, in America, “Not only do ordinary citizens not have uniquely substantial power over policy decisions; they have little or no independent influence on policy at all. By contrast, economic elites are estimated to have a quite substantial, highly significant, independent impact on policy.”
Our government, at present, is most accurately described as an “oligarchy”. Perfect Democracy Amendments will instantly transform it into a true democracy.
The Supremacy of the Legislative Power
For a direct democracy to have the form of a Perfect Democracy, the "officers" who execute the laws must be “appointed” (or elected) by a majority vote of the people (either directly or indirectly) and the powers of those officers must be limited to executing the laws.
Veto Referendums
A president or a governor having the power to veto legislation, that must then be approved by a super-majority in both houses of Congress or a state legislature is undemocratic because it violates the principle of majority rule.
The power to veto legislation enacted by Congress or a state legislature should be vested in the people through veto referendums.
Judicial Reviews should be advisory
Supreme Court Justices having the power to nullify legislation enacted by Congress or a state legislature also violates the principle of majority rule. Especially when amending a constitution requires a super-majority of legislators to propose an amendment and/or a super-majority of votes to ratify an amendment.
Too Many Ballot Proposals?
The most common argument likely to be made against making it easier for citizens to call referendums and use the initiative is that we will be inundated with too many ballot proposals, including some proposals that are frivolous or dangerous. If that proves to be the case, it may be necessary to make some adjustments, most likely by increasing the number of signatures required to call referendums or use the initiative. But the problems right now are that it is far too difficult to call referendums and use the initiative and that there is no provision for referendums or the initiative at the federal level or in twenty-four states. Both Congress and state legislatures are failing to enact a great deal of critically needed legislation that has majority support among the people. And a great deal of legislation that does not appear to have the support of a majority of the people is being enacted.
It is important to strike the proper balance between making it too easy and too difficult to call referendums and for the people of a community, state, or the nation, to put proposals on the ballot.
The best way to limit the number of referendums called and the number of proposals put on the ballot through the initiative is to make Congress and state legislatures a more accurate reflection of the will of the people. Implementing Ranked Choice Voting (multiple-member districts) would help with that. Implementing systems of Proxies for Citizens would be even better. Combining Ranked Choice Voting (with multiple-member districts) and Proxies for Citizens would be the best way of all to make Congress and state legislatures truly democratic institutions.
Join the Pro-Democracy Movement
Communication is vital within a broad-based grassroots movement. We are compiling a data base of pro-democracy activists and voters. To join the Pro-Democracy Movement, please provide your email address. Your information will not be sold or shared. You will not receive emails or text messages soliciting financial contributions.
FYI: Two Ballotpedia Podcasts About Initiatives
Citizen Initiatives: The history of giving power to the people
The initiative process has its roots in a time of upheaval, over a century ago, when the balance of power in the U.S. was shifting in dramatic ways. Big business was booming, railroads and corporations were gaining immense influence, and many Americans felt that their government no longer worked for them. From these frustrations, a radical idea emerged: What if citizens didn’t have to wait for politicians to act? What if they could draft proposals for their own laws, gather support from their neighbors, and force them onto the ballot? In this episode, four experts on ballot initiatives are interviewed for a special deep dive into the history and modern debate around citizen initiated ballot measures.
How State Legislatures Could Change Election Laws This Year.
A preview what we’re looking out for this year when it comes to election-related legislation and take a break from all of the presidential and federal news that’ll unfold this week.
The material on this website is adapted from a soon to be published book: Government by the People: Perfecting Democracy in the 21st Century by Winston Apple.
Content is Copyright 2025 Gary Winston Apple, unless otherwise noted..
Permission is granted to share with proper attribution. All Rights are Reserved.
This website is paid for by Perfect Democracy - a 501(c)4 political action committee.