Direct Democracy & the March for Our Lives

Throughout this semester, we have discussed the concept of the “majority” and how without proper checks and balances, the majority can become tyrannical. This is an idea that was discussed at the United States’ founding, and the tyranny of the majority is made nearly impossible because of the protections enumerated in the Constitution, such as the electoral college. The electoral college is one of the reasons that democracy in the United States is not direct because representatives of the people cast the final votes and determine the outcomes of elections. Direct democracy can lead to tyranny of the majority because if each individual citizen’s vote counted, the most popularly casted vote would determine the outcome of elections and the minority’s voice would be left unheard. By limiting the majority, the liberty of the minority is safeguarded. Essentially, checks such as the electoral college are some of the ways that the Founding Fathers and framers of the Constitution wanted to prevent the people from having direct control of the government. This was due to their fear and lack of trust in the people to lead government discourse in the best way, and they made it so that more politically experienced and erudite leaders would more directly run political life.

The methods put in place for preventing both the people from directly leading politics and the majority from becoming tyrannical are beneficial to the overall effectiveness of government in the United States. In many cases, the electoral college and representatives will either elect the best candidate or pass bills that are best for the citizens. However, the recent March for Our Lives campaign begs the question of whether or not direct democracy and letting the majority decide the fate of the laws or elections could be better for the nation. If our democracy was direct and citizens could exercise their rule in open assemblies, it is likely that legislation reforming gun control could have already been implemented. A recent poll conducted by Quinnipiac University found that more than 65% of those polled in the sample would vote in favor of stricter gun laws. Millions of Americans marched in favor of reforming gun laws across the country this past weekend. More gun control is obviously the popular sentiment in America, but checks on the majority’s power prevent it from exerting direct control on the discourse of gun laws. The Founding Father’s specifically framed the Constitution and created checks such as the electoral college to limit the power of the majority and in many cases this protects the liberty of all citizens of minority association. But in light of recent events, it could possibly be said that enabling the majority to make direct political changes, such as vote in favor of and implement stricter gun laws, would be preferable to allowing elected representatives battle over legislation. The framers of the Constitution believed that in every case limiting the majority to protect the liberty of everyone else was of primary importance; however, in modern times when lives are at a greater risk because of insufficient legislation, perhaps the framers’ fear of infringement on liberty should be overlooked in favor of allowing the majority to directly exert its will on politics. It could possibly be a more efficient and effective way of passing legislation that better protects lives and reflects what most Americans want, even though it can be said that doing so prioritizes life over liberty.

http://time.com/5167216/americans-gun-control-support-poll-2018/

5 Responses to "Direct Democracy & the March for Our Lives"

Elizabeth Curland says:

March 27, 2018 at 7:59 pm

Carlin,

I really like how you tied the subject of direct democracy to the student march this past weekend. I agree that it seems like the majority of voters want stricter gun laws, especially nowadays since the media is flooded with march coverage and Douglas High School student speeches. However, this could just seem this way because this is what we’re seeing the most in the media these past months. The Parkland students are coming out and making sure their voices are being heard – and they’re doing quite a great job at it. But just because their voices are standing out, doesn’t mean there aren’t other ones. Those who protect the NRA and don’t want stricter gun laws don’t ever seem to speak out loud about it. This is probably because coming out and saying you want gun laws to stay as is almost sounds criminal. It could be perceived as you being ok with these school shootings taking place, even if that’s not the truth. Regardless, hopefully the energy and determination of these marches put voice into action and we finally do see change!
Timothy Miller says:

March 28, 2018 at 11:38 am

Carlin,
This post was very well written and raises a discussion that I think most Americans try to avoid. What if the Founding Fathers’ ideas don’t make sense anymore and need to be amended? If the majority truly does want stricter gun laws, then democracy says that is what should happen, but where does the direct control from the people start and stop? ‘Stricter gun laws’ could mean so many different things so finding a medium among citizens would be near impossible, which is why representative democracy is effective. If there was a way to have all voices individually heard and individual ideas represented, that would be ideal, but that is far fetched. I do think that the Framers had their own ideas in mind when they wrote the Constitution and weren’t thinking of what would be happening in the world in 2018, so there can absolutely be readjustments, but to implement a direct democracy may be impractical.
Thank you for your post.
Hannah Grow says:

March 28, 2018 at 3:22 pm

Carlin,

Thank you for your compelling post. I think the issues you raise towards the end of your post are interesting ones, however, I disagree that allowing the majority to vote and implement laws directly would be beneficial to our democracy. Trust in our representatives is fundamental to our democracy and integral to ensuring that laws that are most productive to society are being passed, even though this might take more time. Sometimes what is good for one person is not always best for the whole, and a representative ensures the whole is heard. This is especially important with regards to how frequently the opinions, attitudes, and beliefs of the public evolve and change. Sometimes a slower, more indirect approach is the best method. Although I sympathize with the frustration of having an entire nation demand change and not see results, patience and persistence will prevail ultimately if there is continued trust in our representatives.
Sophia Harrison says:

March 28, 2018 at 3:36 pm

Hi Carlin,
You raised some really interesting points.There have been a vast majority of people opening up and speaking about gun reform. If we were actually to hold an election it would be really interesting to see how the results would turn out, because we might not be hearing voices from the large pro-gun population. However, after watching several interviews from NRA members at the March on Washington, it seems as though they too are in support of gun reform and the banning of military weapons. A lot of NRA members want to keep their rifles for hunting purposes but believe in tougher background checks and weaponry training. In this aspect, I think the majority’s opinion would overwhelming support gun control. It is unfortunate that we have to go through Senators and Legislatures who receive a large amount of their funding from the NRA and refuse to alter their policy for this reason rather than what the collective wants.
Austin Marsilia says:

March 28, 2018 at 9:25 pm

Carlin,
You raise some interesting points people typically fail to recognize in regard to the electoral college system. The system was developed to prevent majority tyranny. We can see the electoral college at work in this past election with Clinton winning the popular vote but Trump winning the electoral vote due to rural and blue collar communities. In class we have discussed the concept of trusting our elected officials as being key to preventing majority rule and promoting effective democracy. Although I disagree with more strict gun laws, however, I do agree that it is time to reform the way policies are created and passed. The country’s trust in elected officials is at a low, causing many people to believe that they are not acting in our best interest. In today’s society, looking at the dwindling trust of our government one can argue that our country is no longer run by the majority, but rather the minority of those in power. Overall, your blog is well written and discusses many points that citizens today raise regarding the efficiency and loyalty of our government. However, I would like to have seen approval ratings for Congress over the past decade to reinforce your argument.

Comments are closed.