Frequently Asked Questions
The central power of government is lawmaking. Laws determine if, when, how and which citizens can vote. Governments throughout history have been tools of oppression and liberty. Ordinary American citizens can maintain control of their government by participating directly in law drafting and law enacting.
The National Initiative for Democracy (hereafter "National Initiative") is made up of two important legislative elements: the Democracy Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Democracy Act, a Federal statute law, the purposes of which are respectively to assert in the Constitution the People's sovereign right as lawmakers and to provide in statute the legislative tools to exercise that right. Our constitutional Framers designed the structure of our government and limited its powers but omitted any recognition of the People's lawmaking powers other than the obvious legislative act of setting up a government in the Preamble with "We, the People do ordain" and the legislative act of ratification in Article VII.
The National Initiative completes the constitutional work of the Framers by fashioning a formal process that brings the People into the operation of government as lawmakers, creating "A Legislature of the People", while still maintaining the original design of the People's role in representative government. The formal melding of these two elements will create a more dynamic and responsive American polity, and permit the citizens of the United States to achieve a higher level of civic maturity than has heretofore been possible.
The Legislature of the People is a lawmaking body formalized by the National Initiative. The Legislature consists of the American people. Through the Initiative process, they can create or alter governments, constitutions, charters, and enact laws.
To appreciate the distinction, it is necessary to present a criteria for direct democracy:
First, direct democracy makes decisions about substantive issues, not about people. Second, direct-democratic procedures serve to empower citizens and spread power more widely; they are not initiated and controlled "from above" ("top-down"), but "from below" ("bottom-up"). "From below" means two things: (a) that a portion of the electorate has the right to submit an initiative or demand a referendum and that the initiatve committee has control over the decision to call a popular vote; or (b) that the calling of a referendum is prescribed by the constitution. In this view, plebiscites or popular vote procedures which are initiated and controlled "from above" do not count as part of direct democracy; neither does recall nor the direct election of representatives (Kaufmann, Buchi, and Braun, 2008, p. 91).
When the people initiate a piece of legislature and vote on it, that is called an initiative. When Congress refers the decision on a piece of legislation to the people for a vote, that is called a referendum.
See also:
Kaufmann, B., Buchi, R., and Braun, N. (2008). The Initiative & Referendum Institute Europe: Guidebook to direct democracy in Switzerland and beyond. Bern: Benteli Hallwag Druck AG.
The Democracy Foundation, a nonprofit corporation, was founded to advance democracy and more specifically to promote the National Initiative for Democracy (NI4D). Philadelphia II, also a nonprofit corporation, was founded to conduct an impartial national election on behalf of the American People so that they will have the opportunity to empower themselves by enacting the National Initiative. Neither The Democracy Foundation nor Philadelphia II have any direct or indirect connection with any political party, business group, labor organization, or other partisan political organization.
Yes. The National Initiative for Democracy is an excellent talking point. One possible tactic was demonstrated by Senator Mike Gravel in his run in the 2008 presidential election. Whenever faced with a difficult question such as "How will you improve the economy?," he responded by saying that he will work to empower the voters to solve their own problems through the National Initiaitve.
Matsusaka (2004) noted that "the fact that 49 of 50 states require popular approval by referendum for amendments to their constitutions---apparently without controversy---suggests that there is actually a board consensus that ordinary citizens are capable of voting on issues" (p. 178). Twenty-four states already have a mechanism for people to make certain types of law at a state and local level, in these states the people have legislated responsibly, many times more so than their elected representatives. Many states also already have some type of initiative voting such as on bond issues and state constitution amendments. Civil service, campaign finance reform, women's right to vote and environmental responsibility are but a few examples of the progressive legislation initiated and changed by the people.
There is certainly a place for representative lawmaking. The people do not have the time or interest to oversee every policy decision. However, when it comes to determining the public interest, the public itself can make the most precise judgment. Listen to Senator Mike Gravel contrast representative lawmaking with direct lawmaking (4m 34s).
To appreciate the potential benefits of direct lawmaking, consider Switzerland. There, an administration based on the U.S. Constitution has been combined with direct democracy. The result is without precedent in human history; Switzerland has evolved into one of the most successfully governed nation in the world.
Matsusaka (2004) summarized: "First, over the last three decades, the initiative has had a significant impact on state and local governments. States with the initiative spent and taxed less than states without the initiative, they decentralized spending from state to local government, and they raised more money from user fees and less from taxes. Second, opinion surveys throughout the period show that a majority of people supported each of these policy changes: the voters wanted less spending, more local disbursement of funds, and greater reliance on user fees compared to board-based taxes. The facts, then, do not support the view that the initiative process allows special interests to distort policies away from what the public wants" (p. 3).
There are many implications of citizen initiatives beyond the superficial ability of citizens to propose and vote on law. Since the public could overturn unpopular policy, representative lawmakers will be more careful about which proposals they advocate. Policy decisions would have greater legitimacy. More people would be involved in setting public policy. Citizens will be educated about the challenges of governance and a greater diversity of ideas would be opened to consideration, fostering more creative solutions to the problems we face. By acting directly as legislators, We, the People will assume the responsibility and accountability for our self-governance. We will no longer have the need or right to blame the failure of public policy on others.
It is important to set up a working partnership between the people and their elected representatives. Once the people become lawmakers, they will be able to reform any of the practices of representative government through initiative laws enacted by a majority of citizens' votes. Any law, whether enacted by the People or their elected representatives, will take precedence over any previous legislation and will be subject to constitutionality. We expect that elected representatives who frequently vote to overturn or modify laws passed by the People will not long hold their positions.
Yes. Citizens in states without any current initiative process, such as Texas and Connecticut, will be able to use NI4D to vote on state-level legislation. In states like California, which has offered an initiative process for more than 100 years, citizens will be able to choose between the old initiative procedure and the new NI4D procedure. Since NI4D addresses many weaknesses identified in the existing California procedure, we expect most sponsors will prefer the new NI4D procedure.
Yes.
With respect to California, there is a book which goes into depth about California initiative process and a paper which addresses the specifics of the National Initiative proposal. In brief, the National Initiative addresses all weaknesses identified in California initiative procedures.
There are four intuitive arguments which suggest that minorities need not fear a national initiative:
- Every initiative has its own unique majority and minority. For example: A citizen may be in the majority on an education initiative but in the minority on an energy initiative. Most initiatives will not start with an overwhelming majority. Advocates of both sides of an initiative will attempt to appeal to the undecided and minorities. This recurring dynamic develops concern for minorities.
- The protection extended to minorities by a ruling elite minority is capricious---a minority is protected only to the extent that ruling elites are sympathetic with the given minority.
- Minorities are protected by the right of free speech, not by violating majority rule. Act, Section 4-F-4 would empower the Electoral Trust to disseminate balanced analysis of initiatives via all modes of communication. Listen to an introduction to deliberative polling (12m 29s) from the 2002 Democracy Symposium.
- Take any large group of people. You will not find 100% agreement within the group. And the larger the group, the more diversified the opinions of its members. The average opinion of a very large group is bound to be moderate. Many of our problems are created by very small minorities who happen to gain powerful positions. And in those positions, these ruling elite feed misinformation propaganda to their people to maintain the status quo.
A more rigorous treatment of this issue can be found in Verhulst and Nijeboer (2007), pp. 70-72 and Allen (2002), p. 2.
- We, the People need initiative lawmaking power at the federal level of government.
- Many attempts by the People to improve existing initiative laws at the state level have been unsuccessful. State governments have frequently attempted (and often succeeded) in making initiative lawmaking more difficult and costly, effectively turning de facto control of the initiative process over to organized and wealthy special interests.
- Attempts by the People to secure initiative laws in the states that do not have them have been unsuccessful. Executive or legislative branches of those state governments have actively and successfully resisted the efforts of the People to enact such laws.
We have over 200 years of representative government experience, which continues to have value. We view the People as legislators in a real and ongoing sense -- not just undertaking an occasional initiative when in dramatic disagreement with their elected representatives. We feel the people can and should make the policy decisions of government and, moreover, that they will do a better job.
In order to bring worth to their new roles, our representatives will take back a good deal of the power that has devolved to bureaucracy. They will be in a position to be more responsive to the People with respect to the day-to-day operations of government. This legislative task is called "oversight," of which our representatives presently do very little due to a lack of time.
There are a variety of protections written into the Act:
- Trustees serve a single term and cannot be re-elected.
- Trustees can be removed from office in a recall election or if three-fourths of the Trustees vote for his or her removal.
- All Electoral Trust meetings are open to the public.
If you are not reassured by these provisions then it is worth examining corruption in the Swiss legislature:
"It [a political campaign in Switzerland] is free," James Bryce wrote in Modern Democracies, "from even the suspicion of being used for private gain." The statement remains true today. Yet there are few checks of the type that in more corrupt states are deemed essential merely to restrain marginally the force of legislative malfeasance. Swiss members of the Congress fill out no forms disclosing their income and holdings, and release no tax records. Even their campaign spending is a private affair. Candidates normally (as a practice, not a legal requirement) report totals to the party but not the public. Nor are such figures leaked to journalists (Fossedal, 2002, p. 77).
Read more about Switzerland here.
It was tried! During 1993 - 1996, Senator Gravel attempted to get resolutions passed by initiative in Missouri, Washington state, and California. His efforts were stymied in Missouri and Washington by court cases, and the initiative process in California proved to be too expensive for his modest grassroot approach.
By putting the National Initiative to direct election, we will achieve a broad consensus on whether or not the People want to make laws and vote on issues that affect their lives. It is the core idea of the National Initiative that the People ought to decide on laws directly. What better law to decide than the law which would enable them to decide on laws? Listen to Senator Gravel describe the advantages of a direct election on the National Initiative (3m 44s).
There is a distinction to make here: voting on the National Initiative and voting on initiatives once the National Initiative has been enacted.
The enactment of the National Initiative will be done in two stages. In a first stage, votes are collected over the internet. In the second stage, all the voters will be manually verified against their state voter registration, and each person will be asked to certify their ballot in writing.
Once the National Initiative is enacted, the Electorial Trust "shall make use of contemporary technology for voting and validating votes." Internet voting is neither prohibited nor mandated.
The people can legislate law as long as the process they employ is fair, transparent and reasonable. An election to ratify the National Initiative for Democracy has already begun. If the majority of the people vote in favor then it becomes the law of the land. Once enacted, the National Initiative will facilitate fair, transparent and reasonable direct lawmaking by the People.
Listen to Dane Waters discuss whether the people want a national initiative (0m 55s).
Our plan of action comprises two efforts: an educational campaign to acquaint people with the National Initiative and a national election that permits people to vote on the National Initiative. The time required for this election will depend entirely on the personal and financial support the people.
The People created the government by ratifying the Constitution under the procedures of Article VII. This Article lacks procedures for the People to amend what they created. However, it is implicit in Article VII that the creator has the power to alter its creation so long as the procedures for so doing are reasonable, transparent and fair.
For more discussion, listen to some relevant parts of the 2002 Democracy Symposium:
- Why not enact the National Initiative via Article V? (3m 44s)
- Is the Philadelphia II election legal? (3m 2s)
- Why will the election for the National Initiative work? (1m 48s)
Experience with state-level initiative laws suggest that Congress, state, and local legislatures may not embrace the National Initiative. However, after an affirmative decision by a majority of the American voters, the President of Philadelphia II will certify the enactment of the Democracy Amendment and the Democracy Act, and so advise the federal and state governments. At that point, Congress can either accept or refuse to appropriate money to fund the Electoral Trust, the agency established by the National Initiative to administer the legislative procedures for the People. A rejection would be a rejection of the People's will expressed in an election process with greater authority than Article V of the U. S. Constitution. Rejection by government servants of the National Initiative would trigger a governmental crisis, the outcome of which is difficult to predict.
This question was also addressed at the 2002 Democracy Symposium: Why will the election for the National Initiative work? (1m 48s)
Assuming that someone will sue over the People's right to enact the National Initiative, (a likely occurrence), the issue will quickly go the U.S. Supreme Court. A 'constitutional moment' then arises: who is sovereign (the boss of the government) in the United States, the People or the government servants? We think the Court will rule that the matter is a political one, therefore outside of its jurisdiction. The following cases strongly point in that direction:
- Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 1 (1849)
- Pacific States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Oregon 223 U.S. 118 (1912)
- U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Hill 514 U.S. 779 (1995)
In these cases, the Court acknowledged the People's right to create a government and the Peoples right to routinely enact laws by initiative.
Harvard Law School Professor Mark Tushnet also suggested that the court cannot address the election because nobody is directly harmed by the act of establishing a process to create law (1m 57s).