When examining the issue of direct democracy, I chose to look at California’s Proposition 37, which “requires labeling of food sold to consumers made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specific ways” (Official Voter Information Guide). There are many arguments for and against the proposition; many feel as though this would prevent companies from deceptively marketing food as having qualities it does not, making it difficult to make responsible, informed decisions about what we eat. Conversely, opponents to the proposition believe that it places cost-prohibitive requirements on small farmers and businesses, and would raise taxes in order to create government resources to regulate this proposition (NoProp37). The fight over Prop 37 is an interesting barometer by which to examine the principle of direct democracy; both sides have salient points that speak to the priorities of two different sets of people, challenging the effectiveness of the whole endeavor.
Direct democracy involving propositions is a fascinating way to allow the public to make decisions – effectively, voters are given a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ option on an issue, given the basic arguments for them, and are asked to decide what they want to happen (Matsusaka, 2010). In essence, this is a great tactic – this allows the public to vote on what they would like, and the majority decision is what rules. However, this does run into some interesting issues given such hot-button and controversial topics; can we be sure that the public is making an informed decision? Often, propositions boil down these complex issues into easily-readable and oversimplified versions of the actual proposition; this can allow lawmakers to sneak in amendments and provisions to the proposition that include things the voter might not want. Many voters are also not as informed on the issues as might be ideal for making an informed decision. This can affect the decision-making process, as voters might inadvertently vote against their own interests, or support something they didn’t know they were voting for.
With this in mind, solutions to this problem are equally as complicated. One might argue that the decision making should only be left to those who are informed, but that would require determining a strict set of criteria for who is ‘well-informed’ and who is not, a trait that is nebulous and constantly changing. That is a fairly flawed solution, as it leaves the welfare of everyone at the hands of a few, whose own motivations can drive their decision making and can be counter to what the public really wants. The solution, then, should be to do whatever is possible to inform the public as to the provisions of these propositions, the full consequences and makeup of their legislation, to allow them to make the most informed decision possible. In a direct democracy, the power is still up to them to vote, as it should be; the problem is that few people know enough about what they are voting for to make informed decisions. The ideal solution, then, is to improve that legislative literacy and make sure they know exactly what they are saying ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to. The methods for doing so are just as difficult to find, and questions abound as to how much responsibility falls onto the public for educating themselves, but this is the best possible solution in a proposition-based direct democracy.
Works Cited
California Voter Information Guide. “Prop 37.” Voterguide.sos.ca.gov. 2013.
<http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/37/>.
Matsusaka, John G. “A Case Study on Direct Democracy: Have Voter Initiatives Paralyzed the
California Budget?” The Book of the States 2010, pp. 337-342.
No Prop 37. NoProp37.com. 2013. <http://www.noprop37.com>.
