Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Whenever a court rules in favor of something the religious right doesn't like, we hear about the horrors of "unelected judges" imposing their will on our duly elected representatives. So what happens when duly elected representatives vote for something the religious right doesn't like? Well sorry, but that's not enough either. If you don't let them vote on every policy they feel strongly about directly, you've violated their right to vote. So says the National Organization of Marriage after the Washington DC city council voted overwhelmingly in favor of same-sex marriage:
"Politicians on the city council are acting as if they have the right through legislation to deprive citizens of D.C. of their core civil right to vote, but we will not let them get away with it," said Brian Brown, the organization's executive director."We will go to Congress, we will go to the courts, we will fight for the people's right to vote," he said.
Sorry Skippy, but you don't have a right to vote on every issue. This is a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. Your right is to vote for those who vote on the issues - so by all means, try to vote out the ones who voted in favor of same-sex marriage. That is entirely within your rights as a voter. But if you're going to strike a martyr pose, you're gonna have to do a hell of a lot better than this nonsense.
Politics
Comments
My reading of history reveals that Mr. Brown's argument is consistent with the trend since our founding to make more decisions directly from voters rather than elected representatives, both in terms of voting for officials but also policy issues. This increased volume of advocacy for direct democracy has primarily come from the conservative movement but has not always been opposed by the Left, who have in fact joined them on elections and state spending initiatives. It especially got amped up early in this decade when conservatives gained complete control of the GOP and believed they had established the underpinings for the GOP becoming the permanent majority. They were calling it 'democratic conservatism'; they were taking there arguments so far they believe that even judges should rule based on 'the will of the people' (Only on issues they support of course, as nearly always, conservatives' arguments are logically incoherent).
It's also my observation that we're far better off with representative democracy on policy issues. This is a primary reason I continue to self-identify as a small 'r' republican whose values are in direct conflict with the conservatives who control the now mislabeled Republican party. Exhibit A would be how direct democracy has created a massive amount of spending in California with little recourse for elected officials to increase spending in areas still in need of increases and cut spending in areas of less priority. There is very little of the total budget in play when Gov. Schwarzenegger and the CA Legislature sit down to negotiate because California's more direct democracy has stripped its state government of powers needed to put the entire budget on the table and optimally re-engineer given current and predicted realities.
It should also be noted that the conservatives who engineered this in CA saw it blow up in their face. They were expecting less spending but in a fact got a lot of massive new spending since special interest groups would put many amendments to the vote. It only takes a handful of approvals out of every election cycle, with no complementing cuts, to begin to create the spending behemoth that is now California.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 20, 2009 9:35 AM
Because the people of DC have a role in electing members of Congress or appointing judges? How exactly do you support the people's right to vote by appealing to their unelected overseers?
Every single member of the Council who voted for this legislation, as well as the mayor who signed it, campaigned on a strong LGBT rights platform. The two Council members who opposed the legislation spent most of their speaking time during the debate over the measure discussing their support for all LGBT rights legislation except marriage. That is because DC is second only to San Francisco among cities for LGBT population percentage - and we vote in disproportionately high numbers (estimates I have seen range from 8 - 12% of the population, but 25 - 30% of voters). As one DC politician told me, there are only two constituencies in DC - black and gay.
So good luck to Brian Brown in getting both Houses of Congress, as well as President Obama, to support legislation overturning the Council decision (even with the current Democratic cowardice in promoting LGBT rights, I am pretty sure they are not going to waste time setting us back) or getting the Courts, which have already rejected you, to step in.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | December 20, 2009 9:41 AM
It seems clear to me:
If you agree with the legislature, support representative democracy. If you agree with the whole-population polls, support direct democracy.
Few people are actually for or against either one, in princible. Rather they are merely tools, by which an objective may be accomplished. It's just good political sense to pick the voting arena in which your position is strongest.
Posted by: Suricou Raven | December 20, 2009 10:03 AM
Without a doubt. There's very little common wisdom in this country (or, arguably, anywhere). A direct democracy, aside from driving the country to a virtual legislative impasse, would very likely result in some degree or another of tyranny.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 20, 2009 10:23 AM
Very well stated Ed and CPT_Doom.
Posted by: Barry21 | December 20, 2009 10:28 AM
Does anyone seriously think the average American could be fucked voting for or against every little thing? It might have work (briefly) in Athens, but would it really work in America (or any other western country for that matter?)* - DJ
--------
* would I vote for or against the Forestry Protection Act part 2, amendment 2.3 paragraph 3g? I can't honestly say yay or nay.
Posted by: DingoJack | December 20, 2009 10:45 AM
"Does anyone seriously think the average American could be fucked voting for or against every little thing? It might have work (briefly) in Athens, but would it really work in America (or any other western country for that matter?)* - DJ"
Switzerland
Posted by: JusticeLeague | December 20, 2009 10:53 AM
Wait, Americans are really Swiss*? Really? - DJ
---------
* famous for Nazi loot, tax dodgers, cuckoo clocks, chocolate, and banning minarets. That's what America is? Really>
Posted by: DingoJack | December 20, 2009 10:58 AM
You asked if it would work in any western country, which Switzerland, despite its flaws, which you correctly noted, is. I'm not arguing that government by referendum is better than representative government, but the Swiss case shows it isn't obligatorily worse.
Posted by: JusticeLeague | December 20, 2009 11:05 AM
Definitely not. I don't know anyone with a functioning cuckoo clock, and our chocolate leaves a lot to be desired.
I keed, I keed!
*runs*
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 20, 2009 11:26 AM
We are not now nor have we ever been a Representative Democracy. The founding fathers established this nation as a Representative Republic. Big difference. They were men who understood the tyranny inherent in the masses. And need I remind anyone of the bread and circuses experience of the Romans.
As to Michael Heath's comment about direct democracy, believe it or not the initiative process in California had its roots in controlling corporations run amok. It's only in the last half century that it was hijacked by the conservatives.
Posted by: Tony P | December 20, 2009 12:55 PM
The Romans were very sure that they indeed lived in a "Representative Republic" (that word, republic, is theirs, by the way). Your comment, Tony P, makes it sound as if you are confusing Rome with Athens.
And I think this is the cue where someone points out (again) that there is zero difference between the two concepts "Representative Democracy" and "Representative Republic."
Posted by: jws | December 20, 2009 1:01 PM
When the Maine legislature voted to extend gay marriage rights, the right wing insisted that the whole population had to vote on it. During that campaign, an out-of-state group came in and put out deceptive advertising that played on people's fears that their children might catch "the gay." Some good Mormons and Christians, whose brows were furrowed with loving concern, declared in those commercials, saying that if gay marriage passed, teachers would "teach gay marriage" in schools. "We all want to protect gay rights," they lied. Naturally, gay marriage rights were voted down.
Now those same loving people are going to be funding campaigns to throw out the legislators who voted for gay marriage to begin with. Out of love, of course.
Since when has America ever voted to extend rights to a minority? If we had had to vote on allowing mixed-race couples to marry, it would still be illegal.
Posted by: Portland ME Skepticism Examiner | December 20, 2009 2:55 PM
It pains me to see organizations selfishly claim that the citizens have a civil right to a vote on this issue in DC. Where have they been as Congress, without any elected representative from DC, has taken away this so basic right of being a citizen. The hypocrisy is beyond reason -- unfortunately, the rest of the country does not even have a clue. So I guess that somewhere along the line, Congress will approval a DC funding bill that prevents the citizens of DC from spending even their own money on implementing this law, much like they done with needle exchange, abortion, etc.. Will NOM argue then that the citizens of DC should have a right to a vote -- you know the answer.
Posted by: JerryF | December 20, 2009 8:11 PM
I wonder how many congressional aides and other Congress staff are gay/lesbian and living in DC?
Posted by: Erp | December 20, 2009 9:49 PM
Democracy is the oxygen of a state. Necessary and beneficial, but toxic in high concentrations.
Posted by: James K | December 21, 2009 12:10 AM
Vote my ass; the religiotards want to dictate what everyone else should do. For the most part they can't even agree on many things except for picking on the underdog, intimidating women who may be considering an abortion, blocking any trials of new methods for dealing with the illicit drug problem, blaming the homosexuals for all the evil in the world and so on. Come to think of it, there's not a single good thing they agree on.
Posted by: MadScientist | December 21, 2009 4:54 AM
"We will go to Congress, we will go to the courts, we will fight for the people's right to vote," he said.
It sounds to me like he's trying to be Winston Churchill.
"Vote my ass; the religiotards want to dictate what everyone else should do" - Absolutely right: We've seen what happens when a scary person the religious right doesn't like gets voted (decisively) into the White House - the RRR gets all vapoury, and claims he isn't REALLY Amurricun after all.
Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | December 21, 2009 9:51 AM
Badd Dawg - then hire Orly Taitz. Oh the horror! - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 21, 2009 10:09 AM
I suppose if the license plates say "Taxation without representation," non-representative democracy has a certain appeal.
Or I would suppose that, if they were pushing for this in general, not just in this one case where they lost the vote.
Posted by: Vicki | December 21, 2009 3:34 PM
Erp: Who cares?
Posted by: daniel rotter | December 21, 2009 8:43 PM
I have nothing to say about this.
Posted by: Glenn Davey | December 22, 2009 5:32 AM