Let's talk of gerrymandering

[ddstory]

"America is not a democracy, it's a republic". I've heard this adage way too often, and it has boggled me at times, admittedly. I mean, what's wrong with direct democracy?

Let's look at this.

Comments

[dexeron]

I still don't know if I could be convinced that direct democracy is really a good idea (even the convincingly successful Swiss model is a representative democracy, albeit one with a powerful and effective optional "direct" component to it.) But certainly the "representative" model at play in the U.S. (and many western nations) does not always do a good job of addressing the opinions of every citizen, and that is, of course, by design. As progressive as the U.S. Constitutional framers were for their time, many of them still held incredibly classist, racist, and sexist ideas about who should be able to vote (and indeed, one can read their other writings to see the disdain in which they held the so-called "mob" whose vagaries and easily manipulated emotions might cause harmful legislation to arise based on fear-mongering and rumor.)

Of course, in our modern world, we look back at such attitudes and reject the obviously bigoted approach. But then again, one might ask: is there merit in distancing the levers of government, even if only slightly, from the whims and easily inflamed passions of the masses? If all one ever looked at was a Trump rally, one would find it hard to support the idea of direct democracy. ;)

I actually agree with you that it is time to let citizens have a more direct influence. There are still, though, some arguments against moving towards a more direct approach in all spheres. For example, our senate, once quite distinct from the directly elected House of Representatives, was meant to be a more deliberate body, less easily swayed by popular opinion or fad, because the members did not need to worry about popular elections, sound bites, or the mentality that thinks that a bumper sticker contains comprehensive policy solutions. Even though the Senate was not even remotely "direct" in its processes, it was counterbalanced by the much more direct House, and together they provided (in my opinion) and effective and reasoned body of lawmakers. We changed that chamber from a body selected by elected officials into a body made up of elected officials, and I think our legislative process has suffered for it. So, I can reject the horrific bigotry of some of the "founding fathers," but still recognize the wisdom in placing certain brakes on the political process so that it isn't quite so easily steered by whatever popular outrage has gripped the imagination of a majority.

But that digression aside, I do agree with you that we can (and ought) to do better. But I think the elephant in the room isn't merely something like gerrymandering, or the electoral college, or even a so-called "representative republic." I'd argue that these are but symptoms of a larger problem: our either-or, binary, and adversarial system that is so closely entwined with the specific details (and subsequent myths!) of our founding that they almost seem to have become a part of our national character. Ultimately, something needs to be done about that before any real change towards a more representative system will have a chance.

BUT:

That doesn't mean I'm not in favor of triaging some of these symptoms in the meantime. Gerrymandering has to be dealt with, as does access to elected officials (made worse by the Citizens United decision,) and the electoral college is a relic of a time without modern technology, and ought to go as well. Hell, a good place to start would be just getting rid of the whole "first past the post" thing entirely, and doing something similar to Australia, where proportional voting has allowed a greater variety of voices to be heard in government. That kind of diversity of thought might do wonders in arresting the seemingly inexorable slide of the so-called Overton window! A proportional representative system in our legislature might also finally break the stranglehold of the two party system. So there are things that might be done, but I think it requires really rethinking, maybe even at a fundamental level, our political processes. That kind of change is not, I think, going to come from the politicians (who have no reason to change the system) but a grass-roots movement that gets enough momentum might accomplish something there.

[ddstory]

I still don't know if I could be convinced that direct democracy is really a good idea

It's a scary idea, isn't it? Especially for a society as heterogeneous as the American one (not that Switzerland is too homogeneous, but what does it matter).

[dexeron]

"It's a scary idea, isn't it?"

Indeed. I'm reminded of a line from "The American President."

"America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say 'You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.' You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the 'land of the free'."

We Americans talk a good game about the land of the free, and the home of the brave, but we're pretty quick to jettison freedom (and act very cowardly) the moment things get a little scary. (And before I'm accused of being a self-loathing American, I think this is not some unique American quality, but a human one. Yet America has continually held itself up as if we have some higher standard, some ideal that is uniquely, exceptionally, American. So it is by that standard we must be judged, and if that's not fair, well, maybe we shouldn't keep calling ourselves a shining city on the hill, but refusing to change the damn light bulbs.)

Direct democracy is a lot scarier, and it's harder... but maybe that's the point. We shouldn't do easy things, just because they're easy. We should do the right things, even if they're hard. Maybe, just maybe, Americans can admit that the founding fathers were wrong about something! Ultimately, we really don't have much of an excuse for continuing to fail to live up to our own purported ideals.

[johnny9fingers]

We shouldn't do easy things, just because they're easy. We should do the right things, even if they're hard.

You paraphrase one of your slightly better Presidents here. Now all you need to do is get the modern equivalent of Marilyn Monroe to sing you Happy Birthday...or something similar.

You know, JFK and WJC had quite a lot in common, when you think about it. Oops, did I say that aloud?