Democracy is more than punting tough issues to the voters
Democracy means electing people to think
It’s counterintuitive. What could be more democratic than asking people to vote directly on public policy issues?
A great deal.
It is time to put on the table the idea that asking the voters to decide tough, complex or technical issues–economic, social, political–has a cost to our society and our democracy. It’s easy, of course, for elected officials to retreat to “let’s put this on the ballot” anytime an issue gets too hot. It’s easy to make the case that we need the public’s perspective and insight. That’s legitimate and I agree. But there is a major difference between getting the public’s participation and understanding where people stand, and using the ballot as a short-term tactic to get your way. When you are losing, you can always cry foul–”the people haven’t spoken, this is unjust!”
The proposal from Mike McGinn to put the tunnel project to the voters of Seattle is both inappropriate and unwise. This is a state highway and the state–in partnership with the elected leadership and stakeholders of the local community–has made a decision after eight years of process. If you want to overturn that decision, overturn the people who made it and get new folks in office.
Tim Eyman has built a well of informal influence by advocating for his issues directly to the people. People cry foul over his initiatives but he is simply using the system that exists to advocate for his causes. I respect that approach and find the whining about his success to be tiring. Get to work and organize if you don’t like his proposals. The voters and Legislature have created super majority requirements for tax votes, used the initiative process endlessly and created a model–far short of California’s but far enough–where it’s becoming unstable in our governance.
We live in a representative Democracy. The values and ideal of Thomas Jefferson and our founders are more than quant notions of yesterday. It is hypocritical to believe in Democracy but to have so much contempt for those you elect that you take away the authority to govern. Yes we want people to vote directly on important issues–when it makes sense and contributes to a more thoughtful approach to challenging issues. But not on every issue that is remotely controversial or requires government to make a decision. We’ve become virtually spineless in our fear of making decisions.
Someone, one day, G-d forbid, is going to die on the Alaskan Way Viaduct and we will face multi billion lawsuits to say nothing of lost lives. This is serious and it’s a crisis. The effort to delay for many years is disingenuous.
We are moving in a direction where we could put a computer in every home and have every person vote directly on every bill in the Legislature, and eliminate the need for elected representatives altogether. The question to ask is this: Do we elect people to only mirror their constituents’ immediate, exact, short-term feelings on every single issue or do we elect people to THINK long-term, use critical decision making and judgement? And then face the voters in their own judgement? Many believe the former. I believe the latter. We are a representative Democracy because it works and it is the DNA of our history.
Those of us in public office have a moral obligation to study, learn, assess and connect with voters–and to stay in touch with their values and priorities. And then make a decision. Our job is not to test the wind and vote with the 50.1% majority on every single issue regardless of the implications.
We are going down the path of California and we will one day soon find ourselves paralyzed with the inability to govern and to run our own state.
The next time a candidate calls for a vote of the people have the courage to ask the real question: Is this a short term tactic to get your way politically or is it a reflection of genuine Democracy?
I couldn’t agree more. One of the things that drove me nuts about living in California was the crazy proliferation of voter initiatives. As a citizen, if I have one initiative to consider, I can make a decent choice, but once that process gets going, there are several, then dozens, then scores, and I don’t have the mind-share or bandwidth to evaluate all of them. That is why we elect representatives who share our values, in order to be present and able to evaluate these issues in detail, while we attend to our livelihood. This is also reflected in the problems California now has with term limits, so that seasoned, articulate, knowledgeable people are driven out of government to be replaced every few years by “fresh meat” so that the only thing stable and consistent is the force and influence of long-time lobbyists who know their way around the corridors of power.
” If you want to overturn that decision, overturn the people who made it and get new folks in office.”
Respectfully, sir, I do believe that’s exactly what Mike McGinn’s grassroots campaign is aiming to do.
I agree with Aaron.
And as one of your constituents, I’d suggest you be careful what you ask for.
Mr. Carlyle:
The deep bore tunnel itself is a perfect example of the deficiency in long-term thinking you decry in this post. Judging by the McGinn campaign, it appears that citizens are more interested in leadership with the ability to consider the long term needs of our city and region. It would be a refreshing change from the current cadre of politicians who are all too willing to sacrifice our future for the sake of their careers.
As another one of your constituents, I would tend to agree with Derek.
When the public stakeholders recommend two potential options–an elevated rebuild or the I-5/surface/transit solution that McGinn favors–how are we citizens not to think that our elected leaders are beholden to someone else besides the voters? If the governor/KC exec/Mayor had recommended one of those two options, then we probably wouldn’t be in this situation, but when our elected leaders usurp the power of their constituents and don’t make their case about why they are doing it, then why shouldn’t we, the people, remind our elected officials about where power lies in a democracy?
Seems like you’re angry at Eyman and taking it out on McGinn.
Also a voter in the 36th, and don’t feel represented by my delegation that voted to stick Seattle with $930m plus cost overruns.
I’m completely agree with Brice Maryman – the tunnel had nothing to do with the 8 year process, it came out of a back room deal that ignored the process. It ignored the stakeholders recommendation and perhaps more importantly, it ignores climate change.
Not only is it irresponsible from a climate perspective it is also short-sighted in terms of mobility in an urban environment. Cities of the future will need to have more density and more public transportation. Spending billions on 2 underground lanes (each way) over a distance of only 1.7 miles is extremely wrong-headed. It’s like our state legislature is living in the 1950′s.
The state legislature and the governor are irresponsible to keep promoting highway projects in the face of global warming. We know better and we should be able to expect more from our representatives.
I think that the tunnel is very selfish and self serving of very few people. It does not in my opinion create any solutions. I hate to say it but I do not beleive that most of our elected representatives have the sight or capacity to make the decision.
Yes, we do live in a representative democracy but those we elect have a responsiblity to represent our wishes as well as needs. This is not a dictatorship. The reason there is an outcry on this issue is that many people feel this tunnel fails to meet our needs and serves the needs of a very few.
Something this complex and hotly contested should involve the voters. Many questions on this issue where not answered. If we as citizens can get a fair view of what is going on, then we can make a very informed decision.
With all due respect Reuven, shame on you for calling us hypocritical.
Ben
Thanks for the comments. I’m not calling folks hypocritical for wanting a vote…I’m only pointing out that it’s only done in the context of trying to overturn the decision. My goal is simply to raise the broader issue of when we ask people to vote and when we don’t.
And I’m not opposed to McGinn’s right to take this position. I really appreciate his perspective although I disagree.
We all have our opinions about the tunnel. I”m not beholden to anyone. I”ve been in office one year and I studied the issue and made a decision that’s right from my perspective but not the only view, of course. I do think most elected officials have the ability to make complex decisions.
Our larger approach to Democracy is important. And, yes, it is not a dictatorship. Thank goodness we’re all aligned on that.
We’re all in this together.
Let’s keep talking. Reuven.
I agree with you about Eyman, his initiatives are are beyond terrible and I wish he would move to Pluto where he could do no harm, but the tunnel is not the best option for Seattle. We need to be cutting greenhouse gas emissions, not spending billions for car travel. We cannot reduce our dependence on single occupancy vehicles and oil if we keep investing our resources in the exact same way – we need to be smarter than the previous generation if we want to have something left for the next generation.
I believe if we give people a real choice, a choice between light rail or a tunnel we would choose light rail.
Chiming back in…
Seems like most of the comments have been in regard to the wisdom of the tunnel vs other options, but few have dealt with the hazards or benefits of replacing representative democracy with “true” democracy.
My read on this post by RC was that the tunnel issue was used as an illustration of a larger issue, but because the illustration was so concrete, and the topic is so hotly contested, most responses have focused disproportionate attention on the illustration, at the expense of the larger issues.
I don’t drive to work
I don’t own a car
I’m still disappointed that the monorail didn’t make it to Ballard
I think the tunnel is an unwise, shortsighted investment
BUT
I don’t want to be saddled with educating myself on every contested issue that becomes somebody’s hot-topic, or for voters from Chelan and Yakima to have an “equal voice” in Seattle transportation issues.
The tunnel is a bad idea, encouraging voters to second guess our elected reps and to overturn policies by mob action is worse. Mobs sometimes start out with high goals and motivations, but the tendency to degenerate is great and the slope is steep & slippery.
Reuven, I didn’t mean to imply that you were beholden to anyone or to in anyway impugn your integrity.
Ok, question. If Eyman is winning with these ideas, can we co-opt the initiative process? What are the ideas that Dems can advance to get the kind of goverment we want across the state? Or are you suggesting we repeal the initiative process (probably about as popular as an income tax).
Reuven…
I respectfully disagree (and I do mean respectfully).
Is the tunnel legislation, which takes a State project and places the cost overruns on a locality legal? And, if you understood that it was either illegal or unenforceable, and you still voted for the measure, isn’t you and your fellow legislators who have introduced uncertainty and delay into the project?
I understand that many people think this clause will be remedied in the legislature. But, what if costs escalate, and 5 people in the House, whose leadership does not like the tunnel, changes their vote? Then we are back at square one relative to a solution.
That will be real delay. What’s more, Reuven, the Governor and the Legislature have the authority, today, now, this instance, to close the Viaduct due to safety hazards. If it falls, I find it distasteful to attempt to lay that on the feet of those of us who have been anxiously engaged in the process for these past 8 years.
Other than that, keep up the good work!
in general, the comments in support of representative democracy are sound and we do send too many issues to the ballot. however, the AWV replacement issue was mischaracterized. the deep bore was not the result of eight years of process, but rather two weeks of back room discussion. the three executives made a deal on the deep bore and asked the three legislative branches to carry it out. Executive Sims wanted a one percent MVET to fill the Transit deficit. the Legislature and Governor did not fulfill that part of the deep bore deal. so, one of the three partners is broke. Since the Legislature already failed to fulfill that part of the deep bore agreement, why must Seattle fulfill its share? The Legislature has not allocated enough funding to pay for the deep bore. It has written a vague clause into the deep bore bill calling for the cost over runs to be borne by Seattle area taxpayers who benefit. who are they? are they those who live in the four county MSA? are they those who benefit from the faster bypass trips through downtown? one possible outcome: the WSDOT and SDOT cost estimates come in too high to be affordable and the Legislature settles on the I-5/surface/transit option.
some say that if McGinn wins, the state would take its AWV funds and spend them elsewhere. but that would be going against the voters twice: the TPA was sold to the voters are replacing the AWV; then the voters rejected a referendum and upheld the gas tax increase and the argument was made that both the SR-520 and AWV replacements were emergent.
even if the deep bore is a done deal, McGinn would be a much better mayor than his opponent.
please consider supporting Senator Jacobsen’s attempts to reign in the intitiative process. Hugh Spitzer also has worked this issue.