Direct Democracy

In a Fox & Hounds Daily post, I compare California's system of ballot initiatives against the international "code of good conduct" for direct democratic elections that's been advanced by the Venice Commission.

SEOUL - Former U.S. Sen. Mike Gravel (D-Alaska), a 2008 Democratic candidate for president, has been the leading advocate of introducing the ballot initiative at the federal level in America. But, as Gravel told the 2009 Global Forum on Modern Direct Democracy here Monday, he's been frustrated in his efforts in the U.S.
    So now, in an application of the maxim "If you face a big problem, expand it," Gravel has decided to take his idea for America to other countries. His search for "an alternative national venue" has brought him to Korea, with its relatively new democracy and constitution.
Gravel said he intends to work to convince Koreans to adopt a national ballot initiative power-and then build on that triumph to take the idea around the world. Gravel and the Korea Democracy Foundation have been working to educate Koreans on the subject. They're also conducting a national poll; if it shows support for the strong idea, advocates will press Korea's Election Management Committee to schedule an election - perhaps next year - on the subject.
    Gravel's proposal for a Korean National Initiative also creates a Citizens' Assembly and a "citizens Trust" to administer direct democratic elections.
    Gravel and other advocates have cleverly sought to appeal to national pride - particularly Koreans' record as successful exporters. Direct democracy, they argue, would be another Korean export.

I think this story from the Kansas City Star officially confirms it: we're in the midst of a national reassessment of the initiative and referendum. (Hat tip: Bruno Kaufmann).

That city -- and the state of Missouri -- are examining whether it's too easy to qualify measures for the ballot. They're just the latest places looking at initiative reform. Oklahoma, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona and Mississippi are also considering major changes to the process. (California, where there has been talk of reform but little legislative action, is an outlier here).

Intriguingly, Bruce Cain, the well-known political scientist at UC Berkeley, is quoted in this story. Kansas City, he says, is “falling into the California trap of constant electioneering. And that will lead to ballot fatigue and cynicism. This is a real problem.”

Nonsense, on many levels. There may or may not be ballot fatigue in California. Polling differs on the subject. And, yes, when you vote more often, turnout drops. But there's no evidence that ballot fatigue is, by any measure, a problem. If it is, the Swiss, who vote four times a year (at least) with relatively low turnout, have managed to survive a centuries-old case of ballot fatigue. And they have an efficient, well-managed, peaceful country. California should be so lucky.

And these days, you can never be too cynical.

Friend of the blog Dennis Engbarth, a Taiwan-based journalist, writes with news of a threat to that country's new direct democracy: the party of President Ma Ying-jeou's, the Chinese Nationalist Party or Kuomintang, is trying to purge leadership of the Taiwan Democracy Foundation.

The foundation promotes democracy and has funded efforts to study direct democracy, which have led to the establishment of the referendum in Taiwan. Ma opposes direct democracy.

More details via this story at Taiwan News Online.

Last fall, I attended the first global forum on direct democracy, held in Aarau, Switzerland. Academics, journalists, and activists from 35 countries showed up. I can't explain how helpful the event was to my thinking. In California's daily political life, it's easy to think that the initiative and referendum process we have here are fixed things. But in a global perspective, we're a strange outlier, with an inflexible process.

The Initiative and Referendum Institute Europe, a leading sponsor of the forum, has just announced a second global forum, for Sept. 14-16 in South Korea. Details are here. I hope that Californians and Americans with an interest in direct democracy will find a way to join us. (Last time, the United States of America was represented by yours truly and Mike Gravel. With all due respect to Sen. Gravel, we can do better).

A third global forum is already in the works. It's likely to be held in California in 2010, a time when voters here may be considering whether to call a constitutional convention. More to come on this in the future.

Both the outgoing governor, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary-nominee Janet Napolitano, and her successor, Jan Brewer, have called for major reform of the state's initiative process. So has the Arizona Republic, in this recent editorial.  It's hard to blame them. Arizona saw perhaps unprecedented signature fraud last year. A typical validity rate for signatures collected in an initiative campaign is 70 percent. But multiple measures last year had validity rates of less than 50 percent. That's strong evidence of institutional, across-the-board fraud.

A new law in Guam requires that an initiative measure rejected by voters can't appear on the ballot again for at least three years. California and most other direct democracy states don't have laws like this. Perhaps they should.

Liberals and Democrats in Southern California have been meeting to talk about initiative reform. Here's an update of what they're up to, via the Calitics blog.

Macleans offers its own look at the results of major American ballot measures this fall.

In California and Arizona, there's more and more talk of fixing the initiative process. Here are two editorials published this weekend, one from the paper in Monterey, California, the other from Tuscon, Arizona. I think initiative reform is needed, but I don't think it has much chance. There's no consensus on what reform should look like, or even why reform is needed (some think the process too restrictive and too expensive, others think it too cheap and easy)