You write:

“Direct democracy sucks.”

Government in general sucks. Direct democracy sucks more than some other systems in some ways, less that those other systems in others.

In my opinion, direct democracy in the form specifically provided for in NI4D sucks enough less and in important enough ways than the current system to be worth supporting when it’s proposed as an alternative to that current system.

The three ways in which it sucks less that are important to me are:

1) It provides for a lengthy period of deliberation. Congress has developed a nasty habit of slamming stuff through without even reading it, let alone debating it and thinking its implications through.

2) It doesn’t provide for surprise or surreptitious insertion of extraneous amendments, riders, earmarks, etc.

3) It will almost certainly take more money, job offers, etc. to bribe an election-swinging portion of the electorate to vote for or against X than it does to bribe a few key congresscritters to facilitate or block passage of X.

Yes, initiative and referendum has been used to do some bad things (smoking bans, for example). It’s also been used to do some good things (tax limitations, for example).

The morality of treating democracy as a principle is certainly debatable — but that debate isn’t especially relevant, since to the extent that it is treated as a principle, it is the principle underlying both NI4D and the existing system (both as it is and as constitutionalists claim it should be) in terms of justification. In any conflict between the two, what’s at stake is not principle but process preference.

I endorsed NI4D last year, and see no reason to withdraw that endorsement.

I don’t consider NI4D, or any other form of government in the nation-state model, “ideal,” but NI4D has more restraints on government power built into it than are operant in the existing system.

Under NI4D, instead of just handing out campaign contributions and job offers to majorities of 435 US Representatives, 50 US Senators and a President and Vice-President to get a piece of legislation passed, those seeking a new law would have to figure out a way to persuade a majority of the American electorate … TWICE, six months apart.

Furthermore, if NI4D/”direct democracy” are problematic, then systems derived from them (such as the US system, which bases its alleged legitimacy in “the consent of the governed” and on the claim of speaking for “we the people”) inherit the same problems. Gonna take it, why not take it straight instead of watered down?

No results found for tiradefaction :

It’s also striking how dead today’s anti-war movement is compared to those days. Sadly, it seems the threat of being drafted was the main impetus for many to vocally oppose a senseless war.

I’m just not exactly sure what you mean by “restoration of power constraints.” If you mean limiting the federal government, I just don’t think that representatives will ever willingly give up the huge amount of power they have.

I’m merely questioning a.) for clarity on Mr. Knapp’s view (as he is a presidential candidate) and b.) why the restoration of power constraints through other means are being inherently dismissed as unrealistic?

I haven’t offered my personal opinion on the matter, so I’m not sure what the reason is for your tone.

Plus, if you’re looking to limit the power of the federal government, representatives aren’t going to do it – they’re not going to limit their own power. The people have to take the power away from them, and one way to do that is through initiatives.

Are you implying then that neither you nor Tom views the restoration or enactment of power restraints as a ‘realistic’ option?

Erik – I interpreted Tom’s endorsement as saying that out of the realistic choices for America, this is the best, even if it’s not ideal.

And everyone else – the money bomb is today! Please donate at http://film.ni4d.us

Then again, I could always be wrong.