Direct Democracy: Is it Better than our Representative Democracy?

The Swiss recently celebrated the digging of a $10 billion, 35.4-mile (57-kilometer) tube will connect Europe's high-speed rail network to various valleys and low lying areas of Switzerland, without having to use trucks to go over the Alps. This is a mighty accomplishment, but what was intriguing about it was the way that it was done- Swiss voters approved the tunnel's construction in a series of referendums almost 20 years ago, where despite some criticism at the cost — almost $1,300 for every citizen — the proposal passed by a wide margin.

"Today proves how sustainable, strong and efficient our direct democracy is," Swiss Transport Minister Moritz Leuenberger told miners, VIPs and reporters amid the raucous underground celebrating as the huge drill broke through the last stretch of rock deep in the Swiss Alps.

Direct democracy is a form of democracy which sovereignty is lodged in the assembly of all citizens who choose to participate. Depending on the particular system, this assembly might pass executive motions, make laws, elect or dismiss officials, and conduct trials. Direct democracy stands in contrast to representative democracy, where sovereignty is exercised by a subset of the people, usually on the basis of election. In America, we have elements of direct democracy in the form of initiatives, referendums, and recalls, but mostly our nation relies on electing officials who then make decisions for us.

After watching the disasters of the last several decades, where more and more political power is accumulated in the national government and representatives increasingly represent larger and larger population groups, I have to wonder if our system works any more. It isn't working any more like our founding fathers designed it- direct election of senators, fixed number of Representatives, vast expansion of federal government, etc- so it shouldn't offend conservatives to question our present system. Perhaps it is the system that is broken, and a radical new fix is required?

Via wikipedia's entry on Direct Democracy:

In Switzerland, single majorities are sufficient at the town, city, and canton level, but at the national level, double majorities are required on constitutional matters. The intent of the double majorities is simply to ensure any citizen-made law's legitimacy.

Double majorities are, first, the approval by a majority of those voting, and, second, a majority of cantons in which a majority of those voting approve the ballot measure. In 1890, when the provisions for Swiss national citizen lawmaking were being debated by civil society and government, the Swiss copied the idea of double majorities from the United States Congress, in which House votes were to represent the people and Senate votes were to represent the states. According to its supporters, this "legitimacy-rich" approach to national citizen lawmaking has been very successful. Switzerland has had tandem successes both socially and economically which are matched by only a few other nations, and that the United States is not one of them.

Did you catch that? Originally, the Swiss copied our system, and have since been very happy with it, but here in America, the progressives (early liberals) changed our system and since then, our nation has been increasingly unhappy with our system and the laws it passes, both by Republicans and Democrats. Double majorities and direct democracy may be the direction that our nation should go in the future to achieve more legitimate government.

How might this look and how might this be implemented in that United States? Well, the easiest place to start would be to conduct a constitutional convention at the state level and go about testing this idea at the state level, whereby a state would invest political power in both county level government and state level government, which would both have veto power over any proposed legislation of state-wide importance. Of course state authorities would have responsibility for day-to-day management of the state, but major legislation (raising of taxes, new executive agencies, legalization of drugs, major regulation of healthcare or energy industries, building of new major transportation lines, etc) would be required to pass a double majority of both state government (which could be unicameral) and a majority of county governments (which also could be unicameral). This would increase the legitimacy of laws that were passed in a given state and ensure that citizens were engaged and supportive of any major laws passed by the state.

Our founding fathers knew that local government and limited government were important to in the creation of laws that the people supported and believed in, and yet over the years our government has become increasingly illegitimate, both with the engagement of the United States in unpopular wars and the more recent passage of unpopular legislation such as Obamacare, the stimulus bill, and budget bills. Our nation might need an example or inspiration for change, and we've learned it can't come from the election of one person and that structural changes are needed- perhaps Switzerland's direct democracy system, modified and adopted by a US state, could serve as that basis.

Suggested book to read related to this post: The Referendum: Direct Democracy in Switzerland.

UPDATE: Saw a post by John Woo called Repeal the 17th Amendment. I'm all for it, and I think this latest line of thought about providing for a double majority is fascinating. At the very least, state governments should pass a law requesting that their federal senators appear monthly in front of the state legislators and discuss what they've been up to. It might serve some positive purpose on making Senators justify their paychecks, since they have a term so long that people lose track of exactly what they do with all that time.