Not direct democracy, not the rule of the people

[Michael Allan]

Hi Fred,

> There is no shortage of material for specific examples (ask the State
> of California, it's drowning under them).  The difficulty is selecting
> one (or more) where the issues are so clear they are unassailable.
> 
> Your question assumes clear-cut opposition to the issue exists or can
> be incited.  In other words, you seek to set up sides, "Those who are
> for ..." and "Those who are against ..." the issue.  You make no
> provision for those whose interest is good government.  In some
> instances, an aspect of good government is whether the issue, itself,
> is a valid public concern.

If this is true, then it is not a problem.  In itself, primary voting
can have no positive issue except by way of consensus - at least a
rough consensus - and that won't happen if the method can only express
the narrow interests of the voters, as you suggest.

I should point out, however, that the method is explicitly designed to
facilitate consensus. If it fails in specific instances, it is more
likely to be for social reasons than for technical ones.

> The threat to good government is the absence of a sizable block to
> protect the broad public interest, as opposed to the narrow interests
> that favor or oppose some issue.  You asked for an example, and I
> will, with trepidation, give you one:
> 
> In my community, we have a bus that travels between the town and the
> nearest shopping mall.  As far as I know, the purpose of the bus is to
> insure that senior citizens are able to go shopping.  The community
> bears the cost of the bus, fuels it, pays a driver, and underwrites
> its operation, including maintenance, garaging, insurance, and so
> forth.  I have never seen more than two passengers on the bus, and,
> more commonly, only one.  Using the local taxi would be incomparably
> more flexible and less expensive.
> 
> What curmudgeon could raise this topic as an issue?

If I try to imagine how it might play out, I foresee several related
issues, all of them budgetary in focus: (1) the division of budget
responsibility between the public and the government; (2) the detailed
allocation of the one by the public; (3) the detailed allocation of
the remainder by the administration.

(1) It is a matter of policy as to what fraction of the budget is
decided by the voting public, and what fraction by the administration.
This policy is itself an issue that is openly voted.  Let us imagine
that the current consensus is that 50% of all revenue is to be
allocated by the public (mostly toward constant, core expenditures),
and 50% by the government (toward more variable expenditures,
including minor emergencies).

(2) The crucial issue then is: Will the public agree to finance the
transportation service out of its own portion, and at what level?  We
cannot answer this, of course.  It is only for them to decide.

(3) If they were to decide against it, then it would fall next to the
government to decide.  It would be purely an administrative decision
at that point.  There might be contractual obligations to meet, or
something like that.

Failing both (2) and (3), the issue would fall to narrower portions of
the public, such as dissenting groups, private individuals, or
companies.  They might be motivated to provide the needed
transportation by their own effort, or at their own expense.  This
might in turn affect the public perception, and might shift the
decision in (2).

That's all I can forsee, dimly,
-- 
Mike Allan