Direct democracy in doubt

If we really want this, we'll have to change the law. Yet I doubt even many of the proponents realize that what in essence we'd be doing is changing our system of government. There were good reasons our forefathers created this one. Frankly, given the average citizen's appallingly low interest in voting at all, I wonder if we really know what we want.

Some things sound better than they work.

Let me back up. Even if you've missed the recent back-and-forth about the idea of more public referenda and initiatives - the notion of "popular votes" on local issues, which has become central to upcoming elections in Coeur d'Alene - you had to be an ostrich to miss what put neon lights on the idea last year: What to do with McEuen Park, and the failed attempt to recall city officials over it.

This disgruntled feeling is not a phenomenon unique to Coeur d'Alene. Of late it's become something of a trend, as a Gallup Poll on political reform recently verified. In it, 68 percent of Americans polled would want direct popular votes on issues, if enough voters signed a petition to request it. That's interesting, given the paltry low voter turnout in local and even federal elections. Note that voter participation has decreased over the decades, not increased.

Now fast forward to Wednesday's Press, and the My Turn column by learned local attorney Scott Reed, an expert on civic law. As Mr. Reed wrote, with very rare (defined specifically by statute) exception the law simply doesn't allow the public to directly decide substantive issues.

Why not? Last we checked this is a representative democracy. Representative - that means we elect folks to make decisions that affect us all. We are not a direct democracy, in which we skip the middleman and decide issues by popular vote.

Let's think about that for a minute. First, consider how few people vote at all and consider too that it is these few voters who would decide for the rest of us, as things now stand. Moreover, consider how few (including the average voter) are truly well-informed. Officials in city, state, and federal agencies regularly hold public meetings in advance of their decisions so we can have input. We ignore them; more often than not they speak to near-empty rooms. A few come or otherwise express opinions; the vast majority of constituents don't.

Who makes an attempt to research all sides of every issue typically considered by councils, commissions, and legislatures - and I mean thoroughly with unbiased, or at least balanced, sources? Not many, and from the misinformation we see out there, not many of those with strong opinions.

Such an effort takes a lot of time, and sometimes it helps to have a specific educational background (engineering, planning, accounting/budgeting, law, environmental sciences) to fully understand all relevant aspects necessary to make an informed and intelligent decision. Some of the problem is apathy, yes, but some is simply our busy lives. That's why we elect representatives, ideally with relevant experience and education, who in turn hire experts to provide information they don't otherwise have, and who spend weeks or months considering the breadth of information before voting on our behalves - hopefully after we've taken the time to give input.

If we don't like what they do, that's what the next election is for.

Are we really prepared and informed and involved enough to accept this responsibility, with such low voter turnout and so few fully informed? Our forefathers thought not, so they created the system they did. Perhaps we will evolve; to envision a committed citizenry unexceptionally invested in civic issues is a hopeful, but not yet realized, dream.

"Men should utter nothing for which they would not willingly be responsible through time and eternity." - Abraham Lincoln.

Sholeh Patrick, J. D. is a columnist for the Hagadone News Network. Contact her at sholeh@cdapress.com.