![]() ![]() Inevitably there would be tradeoffs between size (the more the merrier) and the ability of assemblies to function effectively as forums for discussion and decisionmaking. I would look to experts on polling to supply that knowledge. I'm frankly not sure what the optimal number would be. Again thanks for responding and I'll be purchasing your book early next year. The book I mentioned describes an equal balance between direct and representative democracy to keep our government from continuing down the path of plutocracy. (I'm thinking of the OJ case as well as the number of death row convictions overturned years later by dna evidence.) Having said that, it was better for Philadelphia to host the citizen engagement forums with some limitations rather than go through this election without that foundation at all. So how would a constitutional convention function in a way that would not overwhelm the small number of regular people who would be asked to make lasting decisions about issues that they may not be knowledgable about? Could two years be enough for non-experts to get past essential learning curves? I heard you compare it to selecting a jury but we know that juries don't always make the best decisions. The Citizens Convention could only accommodate 600 or so Philadelphians and at times I wondered if there was enough diversity in a group that appeared to me as mostly white in a city that is mostly black. ![]() But aspects of the "citizens convention" were frustrating because although I feel like I have good sense about taking action for the greater good, I am not an expert on issues related to poverty, education, economic development etc. Considering the size of our population, isn't this number way too small? The reason I ask is because this year Philadelphia experimented with random, citizen engagement for the purpose of creating a clean election for our new mayor (excellent result, see and to create a "citizen's agenda" to focus the efforts of our new mayor (see Overall, this has been an excellent experience and it succeeded in engaging me as a citizen. I'm curious about the fairness of 600 or so "random" citizens renegotiating the constitution. I'm confident, though, that it would properly become the subject of discussion (and ultimately decision) at a constitutional convention. I can't say I have fully worked out views about the role that direct democracy should play in our system. The most frequent user of referenda is Switzerland, which most of us, I presume, view as a sane and stable country (unlike the image that some have of California!). Many countries around the world combine direct with representative democracy. IF, however, one becomes disillusioned with representative democracy, as is all too possible in a political world dominated by money, then one can see something like the "initiative and referendum" or even "recall elections," which we in this country associate especially with California, as playing an important "safety valve" role. My general preference is for representative democracy, precisely because, at best, elected representatives can take the time to become fully aware of the complexities of issues before voting on them. One of the posters asks me my views about "direct democracy," i.e., going straight to the people and skipping what James Madison, among many others, believed was the all-important mediating role of elected representatives.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |