Direct Democracy in the State of California - Essay Example

California State and Local Government

Direct democracy, which is, in other instances, referred to as pure democracy, is a type of democracy whereby individuals instead of those representatives who are elected by people determine all the policies and laws that the government imposes. Direct democracy takes several forms. It may take place on a state-wide scale or locally. The electorate in direct democracy is in a position to exercise political power with no intervening representative. In this kind of democracy, every citizen and decisions made by the court vote on all bills and laws.

On the other hand, representative democracy is one whereby the people elect representatives, and the representatives are usually empowered to create policies and laws for them. These policies and regulations enacted by the elected representatives ought to reflect the majority of the people's will carefully. Direct democracy has some advantages and disadvantages that are a subject of discussion. Therefore, the paper seeks to look at some of the advantages and disadvantages of direct democracy evidenced in California's last general elections to the intent of founders of representative democracy balanced by the rights of the states to channel their internal affairs as stipulated in the constitution.

Before drafting the constitution, Founders publicly advocated for a democratic government system based on the majority rule and equality principles. This meant that there would be a derivation of power from people (Bardes et al. 61). The founding fathers at a constitutional convention issue out a political system that limited the majority's influence in politics. This kind of system puts restrictions on direct political participation and sets some limits on democracy. However, the founders did not create a direct democracy but instead gave citizens the representative democracy under the oldest written constitution. In 1911, there was the amendment of the state constitution by the California electorate to keep to itself the initiative powers, recall, and referendum. The substantive issues in the constitution that make and issue out a direct democracy defense by the electorate powers are considered an overall positive force in the government of California (Carrillo et al. 557). This electorate is the individuals’ subset that can participate in voting. California's constitution is comprised of four direct tools of democracy. These are the initiative amendment of the constitution, initiative statute, referendum, and recall (Carrillo et al. 557). However, the power to make amendments in the constitution of the state is the area of focus. The state’s constitution did not have any provision for a particular legislating from 1849 during the creation of the state to 1911. From 1911 when there was an institution of the state's direct democracy to 1959, there existed some direct form of constitutional change. This was, however, compared less to with the 1960 period to now. Regarding other states, they have a wide variation in the mechanisms of their constitutional changes.

Every US state has a law process for the government to cast issues on the ballot (Bardes et al. 65). Similarly, every state apart from Delaware needs a joint vote to make an approval of the amendments of the constitution. This means that in the present day, a large population of the Americans live in a republic that is hybridized existing in California. In this case, the state government is made up of representative and direct democracy. Direct democracy gives tradeoffs that are a value-set between more government control and more public participation in law-making. Since government control may present to be more efficient, it is more likely that it can compromise individuals' liberty. California's original 1849 constitution did not have any direct democracy (Carrillo et al. 557). The state in 1911 was able to rebalance its value-set choices when it decided to incorporate the tool of direct democracy into its current state constitution.

Pros of Direct Democracy

Based on the evidence from the 2018 general elections in California, there are several pros of direct democracy that are a subject of discussion. In the last general election in California, direct democracy ensured full transparency of the government. Unlike the representative democracy, direct democracy in California State provided a higher degree of transparency and openness in the general elections between the government and people. Looking at most founders, however, they had a preference for the representative democracy, which is why they included the House of Representatives in the constitution (Bardes et al. 79). Direct democracy was also able to ensure more accountability for the government. People were able to be offered an unmistakable direct voice through the votes they cast on the ballot. Therefore, this direct democracy in California demanded a great accountability level on the government's part. As a result of this form of democracy, the government could not be in a position to claim that it was not aware or even unclear on the people's will. Founders did not have faith in ordinary people's ability to choose leaders, as in the case of direct democracy (Cherny 42). There was also the elimination of legislative process interference from partisan political parties and particular groups of interest. In the last general elections in California, direct democracy ensured greater cooperation within the citizens. Individuals tend to comply with those rules and policies that they create. Citizens in California who knew their opinions became more eager to participate in government processes.

Cons of Direct Democracy

However, in as much as direct democracy had several significant advantages in California’s last general elections, there were also some pieces of evidence of disadvantages that this kind of democracy possesses. In the previous general elections, more voters were required, whereby they were expected to read and become more informed to decide instead of party-based voting (Carrillo et al. 557). Founders recognized that a ruling class inevitably becomes inept and corrupt, which is why they did their best to offer people with enough representation in the government. The above helps in avoiding the formation of a ruling class while at the same time trying to make it so that capable and intelligent leaders would end up in power positions (Bardes et al. 100).

Looking at initiatives, they have the potential of fundamentally changing the constitution or even increasing taxes. Recalls, on the other hand, can end up removing politicians from office. Looking at these decisions, they are in no way small decisions. During the last general election, most California citizens did not have enough time to research before proceeding with voting. It requires proper integration to add direct democracy to a government (Cherny 42). Like any other governmental power, direct democracy may evolve way beyond its limits and dominate the others. There is also the issue of failing ever to make a decision. If every citizen in the state of California were expected to participate in voting in the last general elections and vote on each issue considered at every government level, they would not have been in a position to decide on anything. It is indeed true that direct democracy best serves individuals' interests when most people participate in it. In the last general elections, there was a decreased public interest and participation in the election process due to an increase in the time required for voting and debating (Cherny 42). Thus, decisions that were not a true reflection of the majority’s will were realized.

Conclusively, direct democracy has both pros and cons. Founders of representative democracy, however, preferred representative democracy over direct democracy. It is, however, not different from any other design feature of the government. For direct democracy to work well in California, it must operate as a state government's part rather than an outside actor. It ought to be incorporated in the balances and checks to ensure the maintenance of the separated internal powers and the power in the external sense between the government and the ones who are being governed.