Federal Ballot Measures and Initiatives

During the November elections this year, nearly every state will present voters with some issues that voters will have direct control over.  These may be highly controversial things like state level legalization of certain mind affecting drugs or less controversial things that are equally important, like Salt Lake county's ZAP tax or oil drilling issues in Alaska.  Some states will even have ballot issues put there by the voters themselves, as initiatives.  During Federal election years, however, the general public has no power in Federal decision making aside from electing officials to represent them in Federal government.

A highly controversial topic over the last few decades has been the idea of limited government.  Conservatives often claim that the Founding Fathers designed the U.S. Federal government to have very limited power.  They say that the vast majority of the power belongs to the states.  In some degree, this is true, but not in its entirety.  When the Constitution was drafted, it specifically enumerated the powers and responsibilities of the Federal government, explicitly stating that any power not listed belonged exclusively to the states.  Of course, they also added a means of amending the document that could be used to extend that list.  The Federal government has certainly overstepped the bounds given in the Constitution, however, this does not mean that the Founding Fathers were entirely opposed to a robust and powerful Federal government.  The bounds set do provide the Federal government with a fairly large scope, even in its limitations.  Many of our Founding Fathers were supporters of a strong Federal government.  Thomas Jefferson may have been opposed to a powerful Federal government, but George Washington, our first President was a strong proponent of a robust central government.  All of our Founding Fathers recognized the value in separating power and responsibilities as both a means of balancing government as well as providing the greatest degree of freedom possible to the people.  They did not necessarily agree on what the ideal balance should be, and they ultimately left it up to the people, who could choose representatives in both state and Federal governments who would work for whatever balance the people desired.  I doubt, however, that any of them ever expected the Federal government to have so much power as it now does.

We live in a time where technology is far more advanced than our Founding Fathers ever could have imagined.  In a time period where long distance communication could take weeks, the technology itself was a limiting factor in the power of governments in general, especially governments over very large geographical areas.  There were many things back then that the Federal government just did not have the power to do, because no one had that power.  With today's technology, the Civil War would likely have been over before it ever started, because Federal troops could be sent in to take control from rogue state governments in less than 24 hours.  Similarly, state governments do not have anywhere near the resources of the Federal government.  The capacity for power that the Federal government has is extremely unbalanced from the perspective our Founding Fathers had.  Now, I am not saying this is bad, but I do think it warrants rethinking the relationship between citizens, states, and the Federal government.

I don't want to suggest anything especially revolutionary here, but I do think that the change in relationship between civilians and the Federal government deserves some attention.  In a large part, the Federal government has usurped powers officially reserved for states, however, in a large part it has done this with the blessing of the people it is designed to serve.  As such, the specifics of authority are merely technicalities.  The problem we have now is that the Federal government is acting in many areas as a state level government.  At least in these areas, its relationship with the people needs to be altered to make it more like that of a state government.

State governments have multiple ways of allowing the people to be heard.  Citizens of the state elect representatives for their state government.  They can also vote on specific issues on state election ballots.  Many states even allow citizens to propose and petition for specific initiatives to be added to the ballots.  Even states that do not allow initiatives often have some kind of petition system where citizens can attempt to force government officials to take notice.  The Federal government has far more limited means of contact with citizens.

The only official means of communication between the Federal government and citizens is the election of representatives.  Citizens can vote for Congressmen, Senators, and the President.  At one time, citizens could also vote for the Vice President, but that was eventually changed, and they are now grouped together with the President.  (I believe Electoral College members can still vote for President and Vice President separately.  I heard that sometime in the '80s or '90s, an Electoral College member deliberately voted for her party's President and Vice President in reversed roles, out of spite.)  Citizens can unofficially petition the Federal government for attention, and they can also lobby, however lobbying is almost exclusively done by large organizations because few individuals can afford the "totally ethical costs" associated with getting the attention of elected Federal officials.  Citizens can also stage protests, but none of these things have any official impact on Federal government.  The Federal government is becoming more and more directly involved in the lives of its citizens, but there is not an equal increase in the influence of the citizens on the Federal government.

This is a problem.  What it means is that our Federal government, which is totally out of touch with American reality, is trying to directly govern the people.  Aside from the fact that it was never intended to have as much direct influence as it currently does, it cannot do a good job of governing without closer citizen involvement.  A government that directly governs its citizens needs to be influenced directly by those it governs, otherwise it will slowly drift away from the will of the people.  Plenty of political polls already show that this is happening.  Frequently polls show that the people believe or desire things that the Federal government either directly opposes or at least assumes that a majority of the people oppose.  (For instance, a significant percentage of Americans are religious and pray regularly, however, the Federal government strictly regulates prayer in many public places.  A majority also support increased religious freedom, however the Federal government treats religion as distasteful and something to protect people against.)  Unfortunately, the size and population of the U.S. make it nearly impossible for direct communication between the citizens and the Federal government.  Originally, the election of representatives was supposed to manage this, however, as population increases, this becomes ever more difficult.  There are at least a few things we could do though.

The first change in relationship between civilians and the Federal government should be adding controversial or especially important topics as ballot measures in Federal elections.  Also, it would probably be a good idea to add costly but trivial things as ballot measures.  Salt Lake county in Utah has a ballot measure every decade to renew a "ZAP" tax.  This is a 0.1% sales tax that goes to support zoos, the arts, and parks.  The idea is that this tax funds higher culture in the county.  It raises substantial amounts of money that funds everything from universal cultural things to community wide religious events that are geared toward community education on other cultures.  While it has its opponents, the people have consistently shown support for it.  The Federal government has its own budget for the arts, which is voted upon in Congress, but which is never discussed with the people.  I have never seen a campaign platform that includes Federal support for the arts (maybe I just missed them, but then they cannot be that common if I did), yet our representatives in the Federal government seem to consistently support them without having ever asked me or anyone else they represent.  This is my tax money being spent, and I never even got to give my input.  Maybe the people do want the Federal government supporting high culture in the U.S., but it has never bothered to ask.  Highly controversial issues, like same sex marriage, should also not be touched by the Federal government without direct involvement of the people (frankly, I think this should be entirely a state issue, without any Federal involvement).  Doing the will of the people should be a strong enough Federal concern that elected officials should not even feel comfortable with high impact or highly controversial legislation without the direct influence of the people.

The second change that is needed is some kind of mechanic like initiatives.  If the Federal government is going to have a direct influence in the lives of its citizens, it citizens deserve to have the power to directly influence the Federal government.  Obviously, initiatives should be treated differently from how they are treated in states, to avoid abuse and other situations where wide reaching affects are not appropriate, but they should exist.

Note that I personally would prefer the Federal government to repeal any laws it has enacted that the Constitution does not explicitly allow it to enact.  I think we would be better off with less Federal interference.  I also think that states should step up and start doing their jobs, so the Federal government does not feel like it has to do it.  Evidently, however, most Americans do not agree with me on this.  The distinct lack of outrage every time the Federal government oversteps its bounds tells me that the people are fine with this.  Since our government is designed to be run democratically, if they majority is not opposed to the Federal government overstepping its bounds, then it does not matter.  Through their inaction, the will of the people is done.  I may not agree with it, but it is democratic, and I will deal with it.  Given that, I suggest the above as a way of maintaining Federal accountability to the people, while still maintaining what appears to be the will of the people.  It is better than letting our government slowly become totally disconnected and out of touch with the people it is supposed to serve.