Tuesday, March 19, 2019

Including Voter Judgments on Broad Policies in Elections: An Expansion of Active Popular Sovereignty

Days after the 2018 Congressional elections in the U.S., the Minority Leader and soon-to-be Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, declared, “Healthcare was on the ballot and healthcare won.”[1] As the new Democratic-controlled House worked on a budget the next Spring, Pelosi was still insisting that healthcare was what that election was about. Perhaps she based her statement on exit polls in which most voters claimed that they had voted chiefly the basis of candidate positions on healthcare. This does mean, however, that the voters voted on healthcare, for as only a choice of candidates could be made, the voters were left with inferring or even hoping that the favored candidate would act on, or at least stay with, his or her position on the issue. I contend that the next leap in the theory and practice of representative democracy could be to no longer keep an electorate, the popular sovereign, limited to selecting among candidates.
I don’t believe that the American voters, as a group—perhaps just of the minority of eligible voters who cast votes—do very well in assessing candidates and making a judgment. According to CNN, “Who the candidate is, really, plays an absolutely critical role in the presidential decision.”[2] Did the voters who had voted for Richard Nixon have even a clue regarding who the man really was (i.e., a criminal)? Did the voters who voted for Don Trump know enough about his personality to make a good judgement? I am not qualified to assess the mental health of those men. I doubt that voters who have very limited, even superficial information on a candidate via the media, and perhaps a bit more information, albeit mostly on policy, from listening to a full speech, can viably include whom the candidates really are in the voting judgment. Not even U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren’s sharing of a bad economic experience during her childhood tells us much about whom she is underneath. At the time, an editor at CNN referred to the personal sharing as a glimpse into Warren herself and what was motivating her to run for the federal presidency. “At root,” the editor continues, “people usually vote for president based on a belief that the person they are choosing ‘gets’ them in some fundamental way.”[3] Can we assume that Warren identified with, or had compassion for, poor people several decades after her family’s economic plight? Time and a drastically changed financial situation can both change a person. It was possible that the emotional sharing on prime-time television before a live audience could have been impacted by the nature of this medium of delivery (i.e., by enabling acting). After all, “that retelling of [Warren’s] childhood [was] a staple of Warren’s stump speech,” which, by the way, the vast majority of the presidential electorate will not have heard by election day. So to just get nominated by a major party, a candidate, at least in the 2020 campaign season, had “to be able to perform when the bright lights come on and everyone is watching.”[4] What an audience gets from a candidate under the bright lights is likely to be superficial from the standpoint of whom the person really is.
From the Nixon-Kennedy debates in 1960, even Nixon’s pale, sweaty face was not enough for the audience to conclude much about the man himself. Could all of his crimes in office have been predicted? That his “checker’s speech” was generally deemed to clear him of corruption in voters’ eyes suggests that even in the face of a candidate’s checkered past, the American electorate (and the media) was naïve. Is it asking too much to suppose that voters watching the Trump-Clinton debates in 2016 could have suspected how Trump would behave personally while in office (putting aside the question of corruption)? I think so.
So why has the American electorate been limited to selecting candidates, giving them the power to go back on policies that they have advocated during a campaign? In other words, if the electorate has not known the candidates (e.g. what makes them tick), it seems foolish for elections to rely so much on voters selecting candidates, who, because they are unknowns underneath, cannot really be relied on to follow through on their campaign platforms.
Because popular sovereignty, the authority of a people as a whole, supersedes a government’s sovereign in a representative democracy, the people should be able to expand their active use of their sovereignty over that of their government by including their judgments on major public policies, or “issues,” in voting.  For example, the voting electorate could say yea or nay on whether Medicare should be expanded to all as a single-payer system, and whether health insurance should be entirely private. Hopefully the American electorate would not be schizophrenic in answering yes on both!  Whereas the private health-insurance industry may have an inordinate influence on elected legislators due to lobbying and campaign contributions, even on policies in which a clear conflict of interest exists, an electorate could restore its primary influence by expanding ballots to include decisions on broad policies, which the elected representatives would then implement. Should Congress and the president implement a tax cut (the details to be worked out by the officeholders)? Should taxes be raised or spending cut, or both, to reduce budget deficits? Congress and the president would still have substantial power (i.e., discretion) in implementing such broad policies. The American electorate could even have re-elected George W. Bush in 2004 and voted to end the war in Iraq. The president would have had to abide by the vote on his prize issue.  So the expansion in the exercise of popular sovereignty would need the protection of law—most properly a constitutional amendment.
The reduced reliance on voters assessing candidates and judging between them would be beneficial in itself, given the difficulties in knowing the candidates themselves, and the expansion in the electorate’s sovereignty would re-prioritize the electorate over its representatives tasked with implementing broad policy directives. I would even say that American voters would be better at making broad policy judgments than picking candidates. I submit that American democracy has been designed to counter or even block what an electorate is best at, while funneling all of its influence through what it is worse at!
Especially in cases in which the electorate is large, the proportion of which that really knows the candidates is small. Hence the Electoral College in the U.S., where the electorates of the states elect a small number of electors to vote for president. Unfortunately, that has not worked since the beginning, as parties took over the College. The Anti-federalist stance that most governance should be done at the state level where the districts are smaller than at the federal level was justified by the belief that voters in a small district tend to know the candidates better than do voters in a very large district. The U.S. went on to become a very large district, with over 310 million people by 2015. How many of those people could possibly have the real story on Hilary Clinton or Don Trump?
By the twentieth century, even the state level could have been considered to be too big, yet no state adopted a federal system made up of what Europeans call regions or provinces. Interestingly, the E.U.’s principle of subsidiarity pushes decisions to the state or local level if feasible; the people are literally closer to their state governments that that of the E.U. The states in both empire-scale unions could improve democracy by federalizing themselves. Meanwhile, federal elections in both unions could be widened both conceptually and in practice to include judgments on policies, which voters are able to make, so as to take the pressure off the importance of selecting the better candidate. The percentage of eligible voters might even increase if voting on policies is found to be more interesting than just voting on candidates. If I am correct, the office-holders have been allowed to have too much power at the expense of their respective electorates, which have had too little, whether unwittingly, voluntarily, or beguiled/pressured by their own agents.

See Essays on the E.U. Political Economy and Essays on Two Federal Empires. Both are available at Amazon.



[1] Kimberly Leonard, “Nancy Pelosi: ‘Healthcare was on the ballot and healthcare won,” The Washington Examiner, November 7, 2018.
[2] Chris Cillizza (CNN’s Editor-at-large), “Elizabeth Warren Just Had Her Best Moment of the 2020 Campaign,” CNN.com, March 19, 2019 (accessed same day).
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.