Gravel for President: a democracy upgrade By Gregory Fossedal Copyright © United Press International November 2, 2004 Hanover, NH -- In a few days, Americans will go to the polls and, essentially, select a king for a period of four years. We will also select a congress of nobles for two to six years. If we're unlucky, there will be weeks of legal battles over who actually won. Even if we're not, however, politicians who have the support of 51 or 52 percent of the vote will govern for two to six years. Isn't there a better way to organize democracy? Well, yes there is, according to Mike Gravel, the former Senator from Alaska who is leading a national effort to establish direct democracy at the national level. Democracy? In America? Under his proposal, voters in the U.S. could do what they do in Switzerland and many U.S. states today: propose a change in policy, collect signatures or support to show there is serious public interest, and thus create the conditions for a direct national vote on legislation. (You can get information on Gravel's proposed democracy upgrade, if you will, at his web site, www.ni4d.org.) As a professional politician, Gravel showed courage and public-spiritedness by defending Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg on the Senate floor. That effort pleased the left. He was also the author of the Alaska Pipeline bill. That effort pleased the right, in general, though it was also opposed by Senator Robert Dole and a number of big oil companies. Now an ex-politician -- "the only kind you can trust," he winks -- Gravel has devoted much of his considerable energy to promoting initiative and referendum at the national level. The effort has little support from professional politicians, who prefer to keep decision-making power in their own hands. The press hasn't paid much attention either. Most reporters, whether of the right or left, rather like a system which focuses on political horseraces and elite manueverings, and makes them the arbiter of what issues should be discussed. "Who do you think should do this?," a conservtive journalist asked me recently. My answer was: "Your readers." The fact that these aristos oppose direct democracy, of course, is a point in its favor. But there are others, which should be especially evident if we take a step back and consider just what is about to happen. Politicans and the press focus on "election day," a revealing expression. Gravel wants to make election day possible once every few months. And he would make every American voter, in effect, a member of Congress. Consider just three of the advantages: 1. Timing. Under our present system, elections are a rare thing. A last-minute announcement can change the whole direction of American government; an event shortly after the election can't produce a policy change from the voters. Issues that aren't even being debated this fall will arise over the coming four years. Under direct democracy, as new issues arise, voters can force them on the agenda within a few months by placing an initiative on the ballot. As well, Congress can consult with the electorate about important decisions. Yes, under the present system, Americans can write a letter to Senator McCain, or make a call to Bill O'Reilly. But no one has to consult the voters themselves. The maxim of indirect, aristocratic democracy is, "write your congressman." The maxium of direct democracy is, your congressman has to write you. How would Americans vote in a few months if President Bush wants to go to war in North Korea, or Mr. Kerry wants to raise taxes on the middle class? It's not clear. Which is a good reason why voters ought to have an opportunity to have a direct say as contingencies that are not seen as likely today arise in the future. One might think that countries that have direct democracy, such as Switzerland, and states that have it, such as California, would thus be in a state of constant agitation and uncertainty. "Nothing would ever be settled," as a friend of mine who works for a Democrat in Congress puts it. Well, yes, one might fear that. In fact, something very different tends to happen, which is a second reason for Gravel's upgrade. 2. Consensus building Elections today in the U.S. are a winner-take all, loser-get nothing affair. Is it any wonder that our campaigns have taken on such a bitter, personal edge? The "losers" -- another revealing term -- will have support by 48, 49 percent of the voters, yet 0 percent of the presidential authority for four years. The winners get 51, 52 percent support from the voters -- and 100 percent of the presidential power. Direct democracy allows presidents and members of Congress to win, but to be challenged on specific issues over their term. This is especially valuable. It also allows losers a continuing voice over legislation. It's true, we can do that now by marching in the streets; but a national debate, and then a vote by sovereign citizens, is a more constructive process. Direct democracy does tend to produce extended political debate, given that, every few months, there may be a national vote on some issue. But these discussions, in general, are informed -- Swiss voters are voracious newspaper readeres, because, as lawmakers, they tend to keep up on the issues. The system also tends to produce what is called a "culture of consensus." Precisely because any given election doesn't have such disproportionate consequences, voters are more calm, and political parties less passionate about any particular result. This is partly because of a third advantage of direct democracy. 3. Efficiency Direct democracy produces poltical efficiency, allowing voters to support the Republican position on matters a, b, and c, but the Democratic position on matters d, e, and f. To understand how little efficient choice we have without initiative and referendum, imagine the entire U.S. economy had only two different grocery stores, store a and store b. Imagine futher that voters had to choose one store or the other -- and then shop there for several years. Now, to be sure, people would still have "a choice." But this choice, and the opportunity for meaningful competition, would be a highly frustrating one to voters. Direct democracy, in effect, opens the political economy to as many different grocery stores as can get a market footing. And it allows voters to switch stores every few months -- not to mention, going to one store to by canned goods, another to buy fresh produce, and still another specialty store for vitamins. Republicans, by the way, believe fervently that voters are competent when it comes to such economic matters. But they seem to mistrust people when it comes to giving them this kind of particularity on political decisions. My colleague Ken Brown discovered this when he spoke to journalist John Fund and former Governor James Gilmore about the internet -- they're all for it when it comes to buying cars or subscribing to The Wall Street Journal, but highly nervous about letting people commit acts of citizenship there. Democrats, meanwhile, want "the people" to rule over markets in the economic sphere, but when it comes to politics, they demur. Neither Howard Dean nor John Kerry took advantage of the opportunity to support Gravel's effort. Both parties, as Alexis de Tocqueville once noted at a like time of division in France, see democracy "as a tool" for achieving socialism or combatting it -- but have little affection for the thing itself. What is a voter supposed to do when he supports Bush on Iraq and abortion, but Kerry on the minimum wage and ? "Well, you've got to choose, that's the system." Well, yes, that's the system. That's the point. Gravel's system would be better. All this leaves aside, moreover, the many issues that neither Republicans or Democrats even want to deal with. Social Security. Immigration. Not to mention those on which they have a conflict of interest, such as election rules and campaign finance. Indeed, to put it in good government terms, Gravel's ultimate point is that, as a kind of political governing class, the issue on which our professional politicians have a conflicet of interest is, essentially, every issue in the book. Direct democracy allows the group of people least susceptible to lobbying and special-interest pressure -- the people themselves -- to have a say on issues where they feel strongly. To understand what an effective governing tool this is, one need only look to the state of California in 2004, where Governor Terminator's skillful use of ballot initiatives and threatened initiatives helped clean up the state's mess with speed and decisiveness. If one goes back and reads the contemptuous remarks many analysts had about California's prospects in the fall of 2003, the achievement is truly impressive. About Mike Gravel When a conservative or liberal is asked about direct democracy, they typically want to know what the result will be -- and have little enthusiasm unless it fits with their agenda. The left distrusts it because of demonstrable voter conservatism on matters like gay marriage. The right is worried about the conservative critique of direct democracy from Plato onwards, that the voters will inevitably choose to redistribute income, the many taking from the few. "You don't believe in democracy," as Swiss parliamentarian Andreas Gros puts it, "unless you support it even when you don't like the result." Most Swiss, by the way, take great pride in their system, and accord high levels of respect to their elected officials to boot. Can the same be said in the U.S.? By large majorities, most Americans believe we may not have an honest winner on November 2. And, a large majority polled by CNN said they will not rally behind the winner if it is the wrong person. The fault lies not with the voters, but with our system, which makes this feeling of political alienation understandable, indeed quite rational. Mr. Gravel isn't running for president, by the way -- another reason for writing him in, in my case. "No one should be allowed to serve as president," as a wag once put it, "who aspires to." Remarkably, or perhaps not, neither of the major parties has had much to say about Gravel's initiative -- nor about political reform in general. Both parties have, to be sure, spent millions of dollars planning to litigate the election results. They've also proposed marginal changes in the regulations governing elections, from absentee voting to campaign spending. But about the health of our political system, about the prospects for improving democracy itself, Messrs. Bush and Kerry are both mute. Thus instead of a wasted vote for Aristocrat A or Aristocrat B, my ballot for president reads "Mike Gravel." The important thing for all voters, of course, is to get out to the polls -- whether you're for my guy or not. But if you are looking ahead to 2005-2009 with a sense of dread no matter who wins, write in Gravel. (Gregory Fossedal is a senior fellow at the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, which studies the extension and perfection of democracy. He is the author of "The Democratic Imperative" and "Direct Democracy in Switzerland." He serves on the board of AdTI, which Gravel chairs, and receives compensation from AdTI. Neither AdTI nor UPI is responsible for the opinions expressed, which are entirely his own.)