Should populist techniques, and direct referendums, be part of the progressive strategy?

Federalist or Anti-Federalist: American progressives can't decide who to follow

I’ve noticed that on Twitter most American progressives are loyal to populist notions of democracy, justified with some of the better rhetoric of Thomas Jefferson:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

In particular “consent of the governed” has been used to justify referendums and other experiments with direct democracy. Even when an American progressive says they follow Marxism, as a practical matter they mostly follow Jefferson.

Charitably, it’s possible these progressives don’t want to waste time trying to change those aspects of the system that cannot be changed, because the change would require cooperation from the Republicans, who are not going to help.

Or, less charitably, these progressives are oddly parochial, unwilling to test their preferred ideas against international examples. I’d like to see more international comparative political science among progressives, and there are many progressive academics publishing excellent books on the topic, but the bulk of the progressive movement doesn’t seem interested.

As an example of what I mean, consider direct referendums. Many American progressives continue to believe that referendums allow them to do an end-run around the corruption of the system: the final result (they feel) is the true voice of the people. But we should consider those nations, such as Switzerland, where direct referendums play a much larger role in the life of the nation. The Swiss can directly push through any law they like, they do not need to wait for their legislature to pass a law. And so, this nation must be more democratic than the USA?

Switzerland has a truly shameful record when it comes to giving women the vote. The subject was put to referendum several times and the men always voted it down. As late as 1959 the men voted it down. At the national level women did not receive the vote till 1971.

That’s already bad, but the full picture is worse. Unlike the USA, Switzerland is a fully decentralized federation of cantons, so allowing women to vote at the national level did not give them the right to vote at the canton level. The final canton to give approval gave consent in 1990.

For all of its many flaws, the USA fully enfranchised women 70 years before the supposedly more democratic Switzerland. The dismissive political treatment of women in Switzerland strikes me as a clear cut modern example of “the tyranny of the majority” but I don’t sense much eagerness among American progressives to find such international examples and use them to test their theories about how American democracy should evolve. I’d like to see more international awareness when we talk about what ideas might best advance the progressive cause in the USA.

By the way, my claim here is not that the USA is an exemplary democracy. Most of the essays I’ve posted on this weblog have been about the flaws in USA democracy, so simply peruse the other essays to see a list of problems in the USA. But it is also noteworthy that some progressives feel that Switzerland’s referendums are the example we should follow, when in fact Switzerland’s democracy has had its own set of flaws.

Achen and Bartels wrote about the many problems with referendums in their book “Democracy For Realists” which we wrote about last year. A point they make is that referendums are often anti-democratic. How is that possible? They give several examples, all basically following this pattern:

1. a normal election happens, and 70% of adults vote, and one party wins 60% of the vote, and therefore represent 60% of 70%, which is 42% of the adult population.

2. the victorious party passes a law

3. some group hates the law and engineers a referendum

4. only highly motivated people participate in the referendum, so 40% of adults vote, and 60% vote against the new law. That's 60% of 40%, which is 24% of the adult population. So a law supported by a party that won 42% of the population has now been defeated by just 24% of the population.

Rather than being a weird outlier, this is a common story with referendums. They are often anti-democratic. They are used by highly motivated groups to defeat whatever majority will was expressed in the last election. (In the USA, referendums in California offer a treasure trove of examples of how much damage this kind of direct democracy can do. More so, progressives don’t look at California as a utopia, even though California offers more chances for direct democracy than most other states.)

Of course, there are ways to rescue direct referendums and make them useful. We previously pointed out the even the stupidest mob can pass excellent laws if they are required to vote twice, with a few years in-between the two votes. Only good laws will bring forth a majority twice, over many years.

And there is another way to make direct referendums effective: insist on a majority. Not a majority of those who vote, but a majority of all adults in the polity that is voting. In the USA, about 30% of adults don’t ever participate in elections, so to win a majority of all adults means you would need to get 71% of the 70% that do vote. And if a referendum can get 71% of those who vote, it is probably a good law.

But of course, these methods of transforming a referendum into something positive and helpful and useful also means that very few laws would ever be passed by referendum, not just because it is difficult to get 71% of the vote, but also because, if you are able to build a movement that gets 50% of all adults to vote for it, then you’ve already built such a massive and powerful movement that the legislature will likely pass this law before it goes to referendum. Rarely does the legislature refuse to pass a law that has the support of 71% of all voters. And in this rare case, then referendums actually accomplish what they are supposed to, allowing the public to outmaneuver a small, obstructionist minority in the legislature.

But keep this in mind: whether you insist on two votes separated by years, or on a majority of all adults, you have to be somewhat anti-populist to push back against the simplistic notion that a referendum should pass if it merely gets a majority of those who vote. And sadly, the kinds of people who advocate for referendums are typically also the kinds of simplistic populists who want to structure the referendum in the worst, most destructive, way.

I beg my progressive friends to consider this as we think about the future. Political Science offers us a wealth of research that we should learn from. We only sabotage ourselves if we ignore the real way voters behave.

Put differently, suppose in the next 10 years the Republican party collapses and progressives gain power and are able to push through broad changes in the USA. What should those changes be? There are some issues where we all agree: universal healthcare, free university education, a higher minimum wage, better protections for workers who want to unionize. These would improve the lives of most Americans. But at a deeper level, are their architectural changes we’d like to make, to better protect America from the threat of autocracy? On that subject, there is little agreement among progressives. More honest discussion of this subject is urgently needed.