Perfecting Democracy

In this passage from his Second Treatise of Government, John Locke uses the term "perfect democracy" in the same way the term "pure democracy" is sometimes used to describe direct democracy. In a direct democracy every adult member of a community, state, or nation who wants to be politically active can participate in civic affairs and vote directly as political decisions are made, with the votes of the majority determining the outcome.

For a direct democracy to have the form of a perfect democracy, the "officers" who execute the laws must be appointed by the majority (either directly or indirectly) and the powers of those officers must be limited to executing the laws.

Referendums and the Initiative

Two Powerful Forms of Direct Democracy

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.

The adoption of provisions for referendums and/or the initiative in twenty-three states in the twenty-year period between 1898 and 1918 was one of the most important and enduring victories for democracy in American history. 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 referendum or putting a proposal on the ballot through the initiative is far more difficult and expensive 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 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, which 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, 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 enact Perfect Democracy Amendments.

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 both of two things:

In states that already have provisions for referendums and/or the initiative, Perfect Democracy Amendments will make it easier to call referendums and use the initiative by allowing citizens to "sign" petitions electronically, by submitting Statements of Support through Online Accounts for Politically Active Citizens.

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.

Allowing citizens to sign petitions electronically (online) is not a new or untested idea. 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 sign 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 or signing paper copies.

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 Supports Direct Democracy

One argument likely to be made against making it easier for citizens to call referendums and use the initiative is that voters are not as well-informed or knowledgeable as their elected “representatives” regarding most important issues.

Benjamin I. Page and Martin Gilens conducted meta-research into democracy in America and shared their findings in Democracy in America? What Has Gone Wrong and What We Can Do About It. Their research refutes the idea that voters are not well-informed when voting on issues, confirms what observation tells us about how little influence ordinary citizens have with Congress and state legislatures, and supports the idea that the main thing we can do to fix what is wrong with democracy in America is to make more extensive use of referendums and the initiative:

“An exhaustive study of thousands of survey questions that had been asked over a 50-year period found that Americans’ collective policy preferences do not in fact suffer from the alarming defects that are often attributed to them.”

“On…day-to-day pocketbook concerns - and on such matters as neighborhood crime, the challenge of holding down a job with no paid sick leave, the difficulty of finding affordable childcare, or the (un)reliability of public transportation - ordinary Americans may actually have better first-hand information than elites who live more rarefied sheltered lives.”

On other issues:

“Individuals form their opinions through a collective social process that brings deliberation and information to bear on the issues of the day.”

“Experts debate the merits of alternative public policies. Commentators and politicians expressed their views through various media. A set of relatively attentive citizens - without having to memorize a lot of facts - can figure out what sorts of policies are favored by leaders whom they trust to have expertise and to share their own values. Attentive citizens adopt those policy preferences for themselves, and - again without needing to learn or recite a lot of facts - communicate them to friends, family, and coworkers who also share similar values.”

As a result:

“Most Americans - on most major issues - are able to form a general idea about what they want the government to do.”

“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.”

“In a word, public opinion is generally deliberative – it generally reflects the best available information and the values and interests of the citizenry.”

Why Direct Democracy is better than Representative Democracy

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. Eternal vigilance is necessary to prevent such impurities from corrupting pure democracy.

Direct democracy is more likely to promote 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.

Aristotle classified governments into six different types, by dividing each of the three basic alternatives (government by one person, the few, or the many) into “true forms” and “perversions”, with a government being a “true” form if those sharing power govern with a view to the common interest, and “perversions” of the true forms when those sharing power promote their own interests over the common interest.

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.)

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 the private interest”).

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.”

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 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.

Too Many Ballot Proposals?

Finding the proper balance between making the initiative process too easy and too difficult

Another 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 would help with that. Combining Ranked Choice Voting with multiple-member districts would be even better. Implementing systems of Proxies for Citizens would be the best way to make Congress and state legislatures truly democratic institutions.

Amending Our Constitution Democratically

This quotation from Chief Justice John Marshall represents the way things should be but not the way things are. The people who “made” our Constitution have been dead for a long time. By making the process of amending our Constitution itself extremely antidemocratic - requiring super-majorities of two-thirds of the members in both houses of Congress or a convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures to propose amendments and an even larger super-majority of three-fourths of states to ratify a proposed amendment - the fifty-five men who drafted our Constitution and a few thousand people who voted to ratify it two and half centuries ago, have made it extremely difficult for us - the people who are alive today – to “unmake” the decisions made by people two and a half centuries ago.

The false friends and true enemies of democracy are (and always have been) in the minority among the people of America, but they were in the majority at the Federal Convention of 1787 and among the voters in a ratification process that was conducted in a hurried manner designed to prevent Champions of Democracy from having the time needed organize an effective campaign against ratification and a largely one-sided debate in the newspapers of the day, with the mostly federalist press refusing to publish letters and essays containing anti-federalist talking points.

The ability of a minority of the members of Congress (and state legislatures) to block much needed reforms is bad enough. The ability of a minority (enemies of democracy) to extend their tyranny over time and future generations, is considerably worse.

Three prominent political philosophers long ago made the point that:

The Dead Have No Right to Govern the Living:

The answer to John Locke’s question should be obvious - the living should make that decision.

And it is not only the “circumstances of the world” or the “opinions of men” that “are continually changing”. The composition of the electorate in a nation evolves continually as some members of a society die and others reach the age of consent and become eligible to vote.

By embedding numerous antidemocratic provisions in our Constitution, fifty-five men, now long dead, created a form of government that was hostile to democratic principles and dismissive of the will of the people. By making the process of amending our Constitution itself antidemocratic, they extended the grip of their decisions to posterity. By locking an antidemocratic system in place, Article V of our Constitution has, in effect, allowed the dead to govern the living.

A few of the delegates to the Federal Convention also argued (in vain) that -

The same arguments are valid regarding state legislatures.

The situation we find ourselves in at present illustrates the truth of these assertions. Although Article V of our Constitution does provide a way to amend the Constitution without congressional approval – through a constitutional convention – requiring a super-majority of two-thirds of state legislatures to call for a convention makes even this alternative method anti-democratic.

Extending the use of referendums and the initiative to the people of America and of the states that do not yet have provisions for referendums and the initiative will shift power from members of Congress and state legislatures to the people of each state and the people of the United States. For that reason, it will be extremely difficult to get two-thirds of the members of Congress or even a simple majority of the members in two-thirds of the state legislatures to support Perfect Democracy Amendments.

The initial victories for Champions of Democracy will almost certainly come in states that already have provisions for referendums and the initiative. In those states we can utilize the initiative process to enact Perfect Democracy Amendments that make it easier to call referendums and use the initiative by allowing citizens to “sign” petitions electronically (online).

In states that do not already have provisions allowing citizens to call referendums and use the initiative, success is more likely to come initially through getting systems of Proxies for Citizens implemented. Although Proxies for Citizens will give more power to the people, it will do so by shifting power within legislatures from members who ignore the will of the people, to members who draft, sponsor, and cosponsor legislation that reflects the will of the people.

The Amendment Process Should be Democratic

The will of the people is most accurately and reliably determined through referendums in which every citizen has an equal vote, and the votes of the majority determine the outcome. Majority rule is the essential element of a true democracy. It is also the element that most frequently provokes a crisis of faith for people who otherwise support “democracy”.

The exception to majority rule most frequently sought is requiring a super-majority to amend a constitution. The justification most frequently cited for requiring a super-majority to amend a constitution is to protect the rights of minorities. The minority most commonly feeling the need for protection from “the tyranny of the majority” is the wealthy. And the form of the “tyranny” they fear most is tax laws that require them to pay their fair share of taxes.

We Have the Right to Alter the Form of Our Government

The Declaration of Independence acknowledged the “Right” of the people to alter the form of their government and “to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles and organizing its Powers in such Form” as seems to us “most likely to effect (our) Safety and Happiness.”

There are numerous anti-democratic provisions embedded in the body of our Constitution. To make America a more perfect democracy, we need to “alter” the form of our government. The fact that an anti-democratic amendment process is one of those anti-democratic provisions makes it extremely difficult to amend our Constitution.

The citizens of eighteen states already have the power to propose amendments to their state constitutions through the initiative process. In most of those states, proposed amendments are ratified by a simple majority vote in a statewide referendum. None of those states has experienced “mob rule” or “the tyranny of the majority” as a result of having a democratic amendment process. The power to amend constitutions democratically should be extended to the people of the remaining states and to the people of the United States.

We Need a Peaceful Political Revolution

At least so far, these dire warnings have not proven accurate with regard to the Unites States. The Constitution of the United States is the oldest constitution in the world continuously in effect even though it is the most difficult constitution in the world to amend. With the painful and bloody exception of the Civil War, we have so far avoided massive violence is settling constitutional issues.

We, the people, should be able to amend constitutions by simple majorities. Neither Congress nor state legislatures should be able to “check” our right to amend our Constitution.

The material on this website is adapted from a soon to be published book: Government by the People: A Citizen's Guide to Making America a Perfect Democracy by Winston Apple.

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.,

Government by the People