The reality is that most people are not concerned about an actual definition of “democracy” and just want to do what it takes to win. If they succeed, that must be democracy.
I've had quite a number of friends say something along the lines of "darn it, there's an important protest, but I can't get work off." Every single time, I suggest "No worries. You can write a letter to your Rep & Senator." Not only have they neglected to follow through: they usually look at me like I have a few screws loose. "They're not going to listen" is the most common response. If your representative isn't going to listen, who on earth are you planning to go shout at?
I'm still unsure what sort of reframing I want to aim for in the future, but nonetheless I appreciate this post a lot!
Yep, and make sure to write the letter BY HAND! If you do, it's more likely to get in front of the rep's eyes by a factor of ten. (Plus if they don't actually read it, your letter goes into a much more special pool of correspondence, whereas the emails go into a trash heap).
I think letters to (one’s own) Rep or Senator would have more effect than many a protest. Not that protests are bad, but if you write to your Senator and say, “As one of your constituents…” they DO in fact listen if they get enough letters or phone calls.
I recall how big the anti-war protests were in 2002/03 and how they were roundly and soundly ignored by every lawmaker in DC. In this case, to be honest, I don’t know if bombarding Senators with letters would have made a difference, *but* in less fraught matters I really think it does.
(Oh and I like reminding people who whine that their interests are not given priority, so why vote, that if you don’t vote you are not a constituent.)
That’s very possible, though I’m not sure how to actually measure this, as there are so many variables involved in messaging. I know protesting and contacting representatives have both had some level of positive impact for various topics, sometimes very profound!
Although, significantly, there are cases where protesting made the situation altogether worse-- ie. pipelines-- while I am not familiar with any situations that sending letters has had a strictly negative impact. Thus, regardless of which has a higher success ceiling, protesting at least has a lower floor for failure. It could be seen as the high risk- high reward option.
That's correct, and as a former intern for a US rep., I can tell you that a hand-written letter is tremendously more impactful than any electronic form of communication.
It's sad that another journalist writes a long, thoughtful article, full of information, which criticizes Matt without (as far as I can recall) any derogatory epithets, and Matt's reply is "awful from top to bottom" and a "collapse of intellectual rigor and honesty." When you get that defensive, it generally means that the criticism has at least partly hit home.
Both the title and subtitle of this post epitomize the problem. *Of course* community meetings aren't the beginning and end of democracy, but they're a essential part of it. For many, it will be their only opportunity to express a political opinion. A society in which many or most people have no opportunity to express their political opinions is not much of a democracy. And more: democracy is about popular accountability, which most definitely does not mean only (as Matt sometimes gives the appearance of believing) standing in short lines and checking off a brief list of questions every two or four years.
"Let elected officials govern"? The elected officials who declared the SUV a truck and therefore not subject to EPA mileage standards, thereby bequeathing us much of the CO2 in our atmosphere? Who've consistently failed to abolish the carried interest deduction? Who continued providing lavish subsidies to the oil industry, even though it is drowning in profits? The main obstacle -- by an overwhelming margin -- to effective democracy in America is corporate power. And if we simply continue to let elected officials govern, it will continue to be. We need to hold them accountable. Not only by community meetings, of course -- we need more effective ways. It would be nice if Matt (and Ezra) would devote some of their considerable political acumen to suggesting some.
Hi George, I think your comment is well-taken, and Matt can certainly be eyebrow-raisingly sharp at times.
More importantly, though: I commented earlier in a manner that generally aligns with your appreciation for community-level organization and input--especially as a way for people to actually engage in power dynamics as opposed to what Eitan Hirsch calls political hobbyism (kinda like what we’re all doing on this thread...) I called for not elimination of localization, but of a change in what it’s empowered to do.
Anyways, sincere cheers for those who get involved. Would that we all did so, right?
But what Matt and proponents of supply-side progressivism point out is how some of this stuff has become another check, yes, but one without balance. They’re seeing how community activism can be captured by those whose CAN invest the time, and by those whose interests may be even more narrow than the community they represent. So what folks like Matt are asking: should not the levers of power wielded by those who have, say, night school, be just as powerful at the local level? And is litigation really the most efficient way to conduct a republic?
Maybe, but there’s a movement that’s seeing some cracks.
Because: there needs to be a recognition that local issues are often, well, not. Blocking housing stock on the grounds of environmental concern is a noble goal, one that speaks to the shared solidarity of self-interest in a healthy planet. But if it is obstructionist for narrow concerns, then the wider community suffers by another kind of degraded environment, as housing is also a regional, even national concern. Do wage workers who would like to shorten their commute by living where they work get an equal say by the fact that their elected representative, who champions housing availability, has just as much power as the local review groups? Do we not see the shared interests, though we may live hours away, in having a healthier housing market?
Notably, community meetings and protests also failed to do anything about SUVs as trucks, and the carried interest deduction, and oil industry subsidies. It’s not at all clear that there’s any way that empowering community meetings would achieve any of these goals, but there are plausible paths whereby empowering elected officials might.
Indeed, I kinda wonder to what extent community meetings are a way of achieving priorities that would be illegal if written down.
I mean, the choices are to either formalize a set of rules, leave it in the discretion of elected leaders or to make individual deciscions at these little community meetings. But in both the first two options it's much easier to challenge racial bias, favoritism for locals/local buisness, raise first amendment objections if they block mosques or adult bookstores etc..
But if you have a community meeting and the board denies the variance because of strong community resistance it's essentially impossible to prove a motive. The people who show up will usually be raising other concerns selectively and you can't practically drag them into court and depose them for speaking up at a government meeting. Nor can the court rule that government officials can't cater to their constituents.
On reflection, I think the community meeting stuff and the extreme process may actually be the result of totally different (and opposed) forces. The extreme process stuff is about minimizing the ability of political leaders (esp absent support from the scientific/administrative employees) to change the rules to reflect their values/priorities.
OTOH, The community meeting stuff is in large part about allowing the community to make judgements that couldn't be formalized into law or rules -- whether that's letting the local pediatrician but not Planned Parenthood get a variance, stopping a strip club from being built or blocking potential competitors or making sure poor/black/etc people don't get to live near you or go to the same schools.
Incarnated in the spirit that I suspect many of us wish they could be, could we defang litigious localization and over-empowered citizen review by placing it downstream of enacted legislation?
Given that Congress hasn’t added representatives to the House in about three-quarters of a century; that state legislatures rarely add seats; and that accountability via rigorous local news coverage is hobbled, the very size and scope of our nation and government breeds disempowerment, if not disenfranchisement. It is understandable that an alienated polity would gravitate toward institutions offering a greater sense of impact per calorie burned in the name of community involvement.
So why not constitute citizen groups less as the bouncer at the club and more as the DJ? If you’ll allow a (perhaps) over-simple example, we can imagine a park making it through the local legislative process, which would likely include an environmental review. Once completed, the parameters of the park would be established--it’s happening, folks, and it’s happening right on that abandoned lot over there! It would be a this point a citizen group could shape the nature of the park, or define some of its funding streams and amenities. Another derivation: imagine legislation mandating a certain percentage of a locality’s area be dedicated to moderate-density housing, with local groups identifying the locations.
Perhaps smarter folk can define this better. My idea is that higher-level elected (whether that be city, county, state or federal) legislating institutions are more likely to consider the fact that local projects--or blocking them--can deeply impact more than just the locality itself. Stop every housing project? Kudos, you and your like keep your view of the foothills; unfortunately, you are helping poison your entire region’s housing market, and folks who should be able to afford to live in your locality now have to commute to work, leading to more externalities, each of which need addressing. This is where I think “supply-side progressivism” has its place to step in and remind us that there is no progress unless you build it.
You might Google the phrase “participatory budgeting”. I don’t quite understand how it works, but it seems to be a process that is intended to do some of what you say.
Does getting 49% and capturing both houses and the presidency constitute a "fundamentally illegitimate" regime? We might say its fundamentally (or at least partially) undemocratic but the USA (or most other countries for that matter) have never purported to be full democracies. The Liberals in Canada won a majority in 2015 with something like 40% of the vote. Would their 4 years be considered "fundamentally illegitimate" by this standard? It seems to inaccurate to equate democracy with legitimacy, at least on a one-to-one basis. I agree that at some point a minority consistently dominating a majority through government would constitute illegitimacy, but we don't seem to be there in that scenario.
Hi Josh, yours is a fair comment, but don’t systems such as Canada’s then require the winner to attract other parties constituting 50 percent of the vote? Apparently at Parliament, less than a majority equals not-so legit.
Hey Ryan. Parliamentary systems like Canada's require 50% of the seats in the house but not 50% popular vote. In the case of the Liberals (and the Conservatives in the preceding election), they won something like 60% of the house seats with 40% of the vote. This is because, for example, the Conservatives clean-up in much of the prairies + Alberta whereas the Liberals win by lesser margins in the GTA.
Hi Josh, yours is a fair comment, but don’t systems such as Canada’s then require the winner to attract other parties constituting 50 percent of the vote? Apparently at Parliament, less than a majority equals not-so legit.
I'm generally interested in what the heck happened to the Prospect? I used to think of it as a good and intellectually rigorous outlet back in the day, but it seems to have really gone down hill since then.
It’s like Salon: it was really great in the Bush era, and a breath of fresh air in the constant drumbeat of Wage War and Family Values and Church. Then it sort of lost its bearings after Obama was elected and went full tilt into “The Establishment Liberals are living rent free in my head” in the Trump years. I also recall Dayen writing a gratuitous and totally uncalled for hit piece on Kamala Harris. This from a site that used to have the likes of Stephanie Coontz and Kathryn Edin, actual sociologists, write articles for them.
TBH I think it’s an eyeballs on pages thing: I keep getting annoying pop up “won’t you pretty please subscribe?” Whenever I go to read an article. Salon is worse: it’s writing is now crapola and its website so janky I can’t bear to click on it anymore. I think the great migration to social media pushed a lot of the traditional news websites down the tubes.
Yeah, the transition from "intellectual journal of ideas funded by rich people" to "chasing clicks via 'death to the neolibs!'/Biden sux" is bad for overall quality.
Matt opens with an anecdote from his Advisory Neighborhood Committee. Since ours (one of the "internationally known" Portland neighborhood associations) is enjoying a renaissance at the moment, at least in terms of citizen interest, I don't want these to be dismissed as an important element of democracy.
Currently we are persona-non-grata with the City. This is partly due to a history of being mostly white property owners and therefore not reasonably questionable but automatically 100% illegitimate in any "woke" driven city departments. The other oddly contrary reason appears to be the burgeoning influence of private developers on City policies.
But historically the Neighborhood Associations have had local impacts. In the nineties we could influence the external designs and landscaping of new development under the banner of "walkability." At this point "citizen involvement" seems to be more a matter of running surveys and checking off boxes (at a recent open house, our city liaison came across like a used-car salesperson with a quotas to fill rather than someone interested in listening.) The city is ignoring us at the moment, but we are rising again. Some believe that the upcoming re-organization will increase citizen involvement—at least things will become so chaotic that there might be opportunities for old hands to infiltrate some influence into a transitioning culture early on.
Local democracy is an important crucible for citizenship. Issues and budgets are a little more comprehensible, you get to know the players in person, and results play out visibly right on your block. In the smaller theater, there's a greater chance that your voice might be heard. Finally, you get to follow successes and failures close-up— providing an opportunity to develop a cynicism that's more informed and nuanced than what might come from focusing solely on what happens in D.C. (This last with a bit /s but not entirely.)
I would love to see citations backing two claims this piece makes: One, that the civil rights era prestige of the judiciary dramatically increased the role of litigation in politics; two, that community meetings are essentially a response to a litigious political culture. Both very believable, but also non-obvious enough that I'd like to see the state of historical or political science scholarship.
In general, this piece seems to conflate judicial review, litigiousness, "meeting-ism", and progressive protest culture in a way that sort of hangs together but feels under-nuanced.
Occupy Wall Street meetings basically 😂 also states with ballot initiatives 🤷♂️ there are very few pure democracies, but the core point of this piece is sort of redundant - of course board meetings aren't a democracy, they're an instance of republican governance with public comment.
However, whatever Matt lost to semantic redundancy I think is balanced by the urgent need to highlight, and deconstruct, the phenomenon.
Also, what I think deserves an underscore is how the citizen review stuff Matt discusses here can feel so infuriatingly post hoc, yet remains upstream of the final say. There’s kind of a parallel here with the debt-ceiling negotiations--yeah, the fact that the debt ceiling exists leaves it obvious that someone will exploit it to enact secondary negotiations. But still. Likewise with citizen review boards, which seem to have too much power at just the wrong time.
Finally, if I still have your attention: ballot initiatives. Ugh. In California we’re up to about 327 different measures each time. I don’t know, I lost count. These now range from, basically: 1) “Agree or disagree: abortions for some, miniature American flags for others?” To 2) “Hi, I’m a large corporation disguised as a citizen activist group. Don’t you think you should decide the complex regulatory schemes for the private dialysis/gig rideshare/sports gambling industries?” It’s enough to make one long for, as Tracy Jordan once said, Good King George.
Didn't necessarily mean that comment re: Occupy as a dig, although it did lead to some pretty silly outcomes. Totally agree that these "citizen input" sessions can feel like a joke when the elected/appointed board has already made their decisions.
One more thought on ballot initiatives. If I could impose a regulation, I’d say is that there should be no more than five per ballot, and that they should ask large philosophical questions. Gone shall be referenda on the minutiae of commerce regulation, or even some aspects of criminal justice reform. Some measures could even be non-binding; they could simply act as a super-poll, one that could apply more weight to legislative negotiation.
In that framework, 2022’s question on whether to enshrine abortion rights in the Calif. constitution, or a question legalizing recreational marijuana, would likely be allowed. Both are issues that have long been within the public discourse; both encompass such broad considerations that they are more like narratives about how the state wants to frame itself, and information on each subject is plentiful.
Disallowed would be each and every one of the measures (it has been three elections in a row now) asking about staffing levels at dialysis clinics, questions that are simple hip-fakes around the state’s regulatory apparatus and are questions for learned and accountable committee hearings in Sacramento.
Of course, in that same framework I guess the Brexit referendum would be allowed to. Hmmm.
I’ll stand by it. In fact, the County of San Bernardino, where I reside, ask us as a ballot initiative last fall whether the county supervisors should “explore every option available” to secure proper funding from Sacramento--including secession. This too, while largely a stunt meant to put pressure on state actors, is nevertheless a large philosophical question that is ultimately not really binding but serves more to highlight the county electorate’s mood. So yeah, as much as I rolled my eyes at it, I guess that too should be allowed.
One more thought on ballot initiatives. If I could impose a regulation, I’d say is that there should be no more than five per ballot, and that they should ask large philosophical questions. Gone shall be referenda on the minutiae of commerce regulation, or even some aspects of criminal justice reform. Some measures could even be non-binding; they could simply act as a super-poll, one that could apply more weight to legislative negotiation.
In that framework, 2022’s question on whether to enshrine abortion rights in the Calif. constitution, or a question legalizing recreational marijuana, would likely be allowed. Both are issues that have long been within the public discourse; both encompass such broad considerations that they are more like narratives about how the state wants to frame itself, and information on each subject is plentiful.
Disallowed would be each and every one of the measures (it has been three elections in a row now) asking about staffing levels at dialysis clinics, questions that are simple hip-fakes around the state’s regulatory apparatus and are questions for learned and accountable committee hearings in Sacramento.
Of course, in that same framework I guess the Brexit referendum would be allowed to. Hmmm.
I’ll stand by it. In fact, the County of San Bernardino, where I reside, ask us as a ballot initiative last fall whether the county supervisors should “explore every option available” to secure proper funding from Sacramento--including secession. This too, while largely a stunt meant to put pressure on state actors, is nevertheless a large philosophical question that is ultimately not really binding but serves more to highlight the county electorate’s mood. So yeah, as much as I rolled my eyes at it, I guess that too should be allowed.
I don’t understand why so many people jump to ‘what if Evil Company wants to build an asbestos factory next to people’s houses???’ when people like Matt are talking about allowing 4 story buildings instead of 3 or whatever.
It is 2023, we should be voting on our phones by now. Two factor authentication is much more secure than retired people checking printed registers. Also, this bridge collapse and rapid response and repair in Philadelphia shows what government is capable of when they act with a sense of urgency. It’s similar to FEMA after a hurricane. They need to do that all of the time. The private sector figured that out long ago, and those that don’t go out of business. Ultimately, the public bears the responsibility for holding our public institutions accountable. We aren’t doing that. We need to remind them where their money comes from and who their customers are.
The reality is that most people are not concerned about an actual definition of “democracy” and just want to do what it takes to win. If they succeed, that must be democracy.
I've had quite a number of friends say something along the lines of "darn it, there's an important protest, but I can't get work off." Every single time, I suggest "No worries. You can write a letter to your Rep & Senator." Not only have they neglected to follow through: they usually look at me like I have a few screws loose. "They're not going to listen" is the most common response. If your representative isn't going to listen, who on earth are you planning to go shout at?
I'm still unsure what sort of reframing I want to aim for in the future, but nonetheless I appreciate this post a lot!
Yep, and make sure to write the letter BY HAND! If you do, it's more likely to get in front of the rep's eyes by a factor of ten. (Plus if they don't actually read it, your letter goes into a much more special pool of correspondence, whereas the emails go into a trash heap).
Thank you!! I’ve always used emails
--or nonprofit platform for organizing, but that’s not really relevant when discussing “letters I can write right now since I missed the protest.”
I think letters to (one’s own) Rep or Senator would have more effect than many a protest. Not that protests are bad, but if you write to your Senator and say, “As one of your constituents…” they DO in fact listen if they get enough letters or phone calls.
I recall how big the anti-war protests were in 2002/03 and how they were roundly and soundly ignored by every lawmaker in DC. In this case, to be honest, I don’t know if bombarding Senators with letters would have made a difference, *but* in less fraught matters I really think it does.
(Oh and I like reminding people who whine that their interests are not given priority, so why vote, that if you don’t vote you are not a constituent.)
That’s very possible, though I’m not sure how to actually measure this, as there are so many variables involved in messaging. I know protesting and contacting representatives have both had some level of positive impact for various topics, sometimes very profound!
Although, significantly, there are cases where protesting made the situation altogether worse-- ie. pipelines-- while I am not familiar with any situations that sending letters has had a strictly negative impact. Thus, regardless of which has a higher success ceiling, protesting at least has a lower floor for failure. It could be seen as the high risk- high reward option.
That's correct, and as a former intern for a US rep., I can tell you that a hand-written letter is tremendously more impactful than any electronic form of communication.
It's sad that another journalist writes a long, thoughtful article, full of information, which criticizes Matt without (as far as I can recall) any derogatory epithets, and Matt's reply is "awful from top to bottom" and a "collapse of intellectual rigor and honesty." When you get that defensive, it generally means that the criticism has at least partly hit home.
Both the title and subtitle of this post epitomize the problem. *Of course* community meetings aren't the beginning and end of democracy, but they're a essential part of it. For many, it will be their only opportunity to express a political opinion. A society in which many or most people have no opportunity to express their political opinions is not much of a democracy. And more: democracy is about popular accountability, which most definitely does not mean only (as Matt sometimes gives the appearance of believing) standing in short lines and checking off a brief list of questions every two or four years.
"Let elected officials govern"? The elected officials who declared the SUV a truck and therefore not subject to EPA mileage standards, thereby bequeathing us much of the CO2 in our atmosphere? Who've consistently failed to abolish the carried interest deduction? Who continued providing lavish subsidies to the oil industry, even though it is drowning in profits? The main obstacle -- by an overwhelming margin -- to effective democracy in America is corporate power. And if we simply continue to let elected officials govern, it will continue to be. We need to hold them accountable. Not only by community meetings, of course -- we need more effective ways. It would be nice if Matt (and Ezra) would devote some of their considerable political acumen to suggesting some.
Hi George, I think your comment is well-taken, and Matt can certainly be eyebrow-raisingly sharp at times.
More importantly, though: I commented earlier in a manner that generally aligns with your appreciation for community-level organization and input--especially as a way for people to actually engage in power dynamics as opposed to what Eitan Hirsch calls political hobbyism (kinda like what we’re all doing on this thread...) I called for not elimination of localization, but of a change in what it’s empowered to do.
Anyways, sincere cheers for those who get involved. Would that we all did so, right?
But what Matt and proponents of supply-side progressivism point out is how some of this stuff has become another check, yes, but one without balance. They’re seeing how community activism can be captured by those whose CAN invest the time, and by those whose interests may be even more narrow than the community they represent. So what folks like Matt are asking: should not the levers of power wielded by those who have, say, night school, be just as powerful at the local level? And is litigation really the most efficient way to conduct a republic?
Maybe, but there’s a movement that’s seeing some cracks.
Because: there needs to be a recognition that local issues are often, well, not. Blocking housing stock on the grounds of environmental concern is a noble goal, one that speaks to the shared solidarity of self-interest in a healthy planet. But if it is obstructionist for narrow concerns, then the wider community suffers by another kind of degraded environment, as housing is also a regional, even national concern. Do wage workers who would like to shorten their commute by living where they work get an equal say by the fact that their elected representative, who champions housing availability, has just as much power as the local review groups? Do we not see the shared interests, though we may live hours away, in having a healthier housing market?
This stuff has to be spoken for strongly.
Notably, community meetings and protests also failed to do anything about SUVs as trucks, and the carried interest deduction, and oil industry subsidies. It’s not at all clear that there’s any way that empowering community meetings would achieve any of these goals, but there are plausible paths whereby empowering elected officials might.
My point was that community meetings and protests might be one vehicle for holding elected officials accountable.
Indeed, I kinda wonder to what extent community meetings are a way of achieving priorities that would be illegal if written down.
I mean, the choices are to either formalize a set of rules, leave it in the discretion of elected leaders or to make individual deciscions at these little community meetings. But in both the first two options it's much easier to challenge racial bias, favoritism for locals/local buisness, raise first amendment objections if they block mosques or adult bookstores etc..
But if you have a community meeting and the board denies the variance because of strong community resistance it's essentially impossible to prove a motive. The people who show up will usually be raising other concerns selectively and you can't practically drag them into court and depose them for speaking up at a government meeting. Nor can the court rule that government officials can't cater to their constituents.
On reflection, I think the community meeting stuff and the extreme process may actually be the result of totally different (and opposed) forces. The extreme process stuff is about minimizing the ability of political leaders (esp absent support from the scientific/administrative employees) to change the rules to reflect their values/priorities.
OTOH, The community meeting stuff is in large part about allowing the community to make judgements that couldn't be formalized into law or rules -- whether that's letting the local pediatrician but not Planned Parenthood get a variance, stopping a strip club from being built or blocking potential competitors or making sure poor/black/etc people don't get to live near you or go to the same schools.
Incarnated in the spirit that I suspect many of us wish they could be, could we defang litigious localization and over-empowered citizen review by placing it downstream of enacted legislation?
Given that Congress hasn’t added representatives to the House in about three-quarters of a century; that state legislatures rarely add seats; and that accountability via rigorous local news coverage is hobbled, the very size and scope of our nation and government breeds disempowerment, if not disenfranchisement. It is understandable that an alienated polity would gravitate toward institutions offering a greater sense of impact per calorie burned in the name of community involvement.
So why not constitute citizen groups less as the bouncer at the club and more as the DJ? If you’ll allow a (perhaps) over-simple example, we can imagine a park making it through the local legislative process, which would likely include an environmental review. Once completed, the parameters of the park would be established--it’s happening, folks, and it’s happening right on that abandoned lot over there! It would be a this point a citizen group could shape the nature of the park, or define some of its funding streams and amenities. Another derivation: imagine legislation mandating a certain percentage of a locality’s area be dedicated to moderate-density housing, with local groups identifying the locations.
Perhaps smarter folk can define this better. My idea is that higher-level elected (whether that be city, county, state or federal) legislating institutions are more likely to consider the fact that local projects--or blocking them--can deeply impact more than just the locality itself. Stop every housing project? Kudos, you and your like keep your view of the foothills; unfortunately, you are helping poison your entire region’s housing market, and folks who should be able to afford to live in your locality now have to commute to work, leading to more externalities, each of which need addressing. This is where I think “supply-side progressivism” has its place to step in and remind us that there is no progress unless you build it.
Welcome any thoughts...
You might Google the phrase “participatory budgeting”. I don’t quite understand how it works, but it seems to be a process that is intended to do some of what you say.
Thanks Kenny, I believe I have heard of this too, but will give it a closer inspect.
Does getting 49% and capturing both houses and the presidency constitute a "fundamentally illegitimate" regime? We might say its fundamentally (or at least partially) undemocratic but the USA (or most other countries for that matter) have never purported to be full democracies. The Liberals in Canada won a majority in 2015 with something like 40% of the vote. Would their 4 years be considered "fundamentally illegitimate" by this standard? It seems to inaccurate to equate democracy with legitimacy, at least on a one-to-one basis. I agree that at some point a minority consistently dominating a majority through government would constitute illegitimacy, but we don't seem to be there in that scenario.
Hi Josh, yours is a fair comment, but don’t systems such as Canada’s then require the winner to attract other parties constituting 50 percent of the vote? Apparently at Parliament, less than a majority equals not-so legit.
Hey Ryan. Parliamentary systems like Canada's require 50% of the seats in the house but not 50% popular vote. In the case of the Liberals (and the Conservatives in the preceding election), they won something like 60% of the house seats with 40% of the vote. This is because, for example, the Conservatives clean-up in much of the prairies + Alberta whereas the Liberals win by lesser margins in the GTA.
Hi Josh, yours is a fair comment, but don’t systems such as Canada’s then require the winner to attract other parties constituting 50 percent of the vote? Apparently at Parliament, less than a majority equals not-so legit.
I'm generally interested in what the heck happened to the Prospect? I used to think of it as a good and intellectually rigorous outlet back in the day, but it seems to have really gone down hill since then.
It’s like Salon: it was really great in the Bush era, and a breath of fresh air in the constant drumbeat of Wage War and Family Values and Church. Then it sort of lost its bearings after Obama was elected and went full tilt into “The Establishment Liberals are living rent free in my head” in the Trump years. I also recall Dayen writing a gratuitous and totally uncalled for hit piece on Kamala Harris. This from a site that used to have the likes of Stephanie Coontz and Kathryn Edin, actual sociologists, write articles for them.
TBH I think it’s an eyeballs on pages thing: I keep getting annoying pop up “won’t you pretty please subscribe?” Whenever I go to read an article. Salon is worse: it’s writing is now crapola and its website so janky I can’t bear to click on it anymore. I think the great migration to social media pushed a lot of the traditional news websites down the tubes.
Yeah, the transition from "intellectual journal of ideas funded by rich people" to "chasing clicks via 'death to the neolibs!'/Biden sux" is bad for overall quality.
A million times this.
Matt opens with an anecdote from his Advisory Neighborhood Committee. Since ours (one of the "internationally known" Portland neighborhood associations) is enjoying a renaissance at the moment, at least in terms of citizen interest, I don't want these to be dismissed as an important element of democracy.
Currently we are persona-non-grata with the City. This is partly due to a history of being mostly white property owners and therefore not reasonably questionable but automatically 100% illegitimate in any "woke" driven city departments. The other oddly contrary reason appears to be the burgeoning influence of private developers on City policies.
But historically the Neighborhood Associations have had local impacts. In the nineties we could influence the external designs and landscaping of new development under the banner of "walkability." At this point "citizen involvement" seems to be more a matter of running surveys and checking off boxes (at a recent open house, our city liaison came across like a used-car salesperson with a quotas to fill rather than someone interested in listening.) The city is ignoring us at the moment, but we are rising again. Some believe that the upcoming re-organization will increase citizen involvement—at least things will become so chaotic that there might be opportunities for old hands to infiltrate some influence into a transitioning culture early on.
Local democracy is an important crucible for citizenship. Issues and budgets are a little more comprehensible, you get to know the players in person, and results play out visibly right on your block. In the smaller theater, there's a greater chance that your voice might be heard. Finally, you get to follow successes and failures close-up— providing an opportunity to develop a cynicism that's more informed and nuanced than what might come from focusing solely on what happens in D.C. (This last with a bit /s but not entirely.)
I would love to see citations backing two claims this piece makes: One, that the civil rights era prestige of the judiciary dramatically increased the role of litigation in politics; two, that community meetings are essentially a response to a litigious political culture. Both very believable, but also non-obvious enough that I'd like to see the state of historical or political science scholarship.
In general, this piece seems to conflate judicial review, litigiousness, "meeting-ism", and progressive protest culture in a way that sort of hangs together but feels under-nuanced.
Wonderful essay, thank you!
You're using the word "democracy" where you should be using the word "Republic." We have indirect representation in the US.
How many places in the world have direct representation?
Occupy Wall Street meetings basically 😂 also states with ballot initiatives 🤷♂️ there are very few pure democracies, but the core point of this piece is sort of redundant - of course board meetings aren't a democracy, they're an instance of republican governance with public comment.
@ Randolph:
A fun OWS dig! Takes me back.
However, whatever Matt lost to semantic redundancy I think is balanced by the urgent need to highlight, and deconstruct, the phenomenon.
Also, what I think deserves an underscore is how the citizen review stuff Matt discusses here can feel so infuriatingly post hoc, yet remains upstream of the final say. There’s kind of a parallel here with the debt-ceiling negotiations--yeah, the fact that the debt ceiling exists leaves it obvious that someone will exploit it to enact secondary negotiations. But still. Likewise with citizen review boards, which seem to have too much power at just the wrong time.
Finally, if I still have your attention: ballot initiatives. Ugh. In California we’re up to about 327 different measures each time. I don’t know, I lost count. These now range from, basically: 1) “Agree or disagree: abortions for some, miniature American flags for others?” To 2) “Hi, I’m a large corporation disguised as a citizen activist group. Don’t you think you should decide the complex regulatory schemes for the private dialysis/gig rideshare/sports gambling industries?” It’s enough to make one long for, as Tracy Jordan once said, Good King George.
Didn't necessarily mean that comment re: Occupy as a dig, although it did lead to some pretty silly outcomes. Totally agree that these "citizen input" sessions can feel like a joke when the elected/appointed board has already made their decisions.
One more thought on ballot initiatives. If I could impose a regulation, I’d say is that there should be no more than five per ballot, and that they should ask large philosophical questions. Gone shall be referenda on the minutiae of commerce regulation, or even some aspects of criminal justice reform. Some measures could even be non-binding; they could simply act as a super-poll, one that could apply more weight to legislative negotiation.
In that framework, 2022’s question on whether to enshrine abortion rights in the Calif. constitution, or a question legalizing recreational marijuana, would likely be allowed. Both are issues that have long been within the public discourse; both encompass such broad considerations that they are more like narratives about how the state wants to frame itself, and information on each subject is plentiful.
Disallowed would be each and every one of the measures (it has been three elections in a row now) asking about staffing levels at dialysis clinics, questions that are simple hip-fakes around the state’s regulatory apparatus and are questions for learned and accountable committee hearings in Sacramento.
Of course, in that same framework I guess the Brexit referendum would be allowed to. Hmmm.
I’ll stand by it. In fact, the County of San Bernardino, where I reside, ask us as a ballot initiative last fall whether the county supervisors should “explore every option available” to secure proper funding from Sacramento--including secession. This too, while largely a stunt meant to put pressure on state actors, is nevertheless a large philosophical question that is ultimately not really binding but serves more to highlight the county electorate’s mood. So yeah, as much as I rolled my eyes at it, I guess that too should be allowed.
One more thought on ballot initiatives. If I could impose a regulation, I’d say is that there should be no more than five per ballot, and that they should ask large philosophical questions. Gone shall be referenda on the minutiae of commerce regulation, or even some aspects of criminal justice reform. Some measures could even be non-binding; they could simply act as a super-poll, one that could apply more weight to legislative negotiation.
In that framework, 2022’s question on whether to enshrine abortion rights in the Calif. constitution, or a question legalizing recreational marijuana, would likely be allowed. Both are issues that have long been within the public discourse; both encompass such broad considerations that they are more like narratives about how the state wants to frame itself, and information on each subject is plentiful.
Disallowed would be each and every one of the measures (it has been three elections in a row now) asking about staffing levels at dialysis clinics, questions that are simple hip-fakes around the state’s regulatory apparatus and are questions for learned and accountable committee hearings in Sacramento.
Of course, in that same framework I guess the Brexit referendum would be allowed to. Hmmm.
I’ll stand by it. In fact, the County of San Bernardino, where I reside, ask us as a ballot initiative last fall whether the county supervisors should “explore every option available” to secure proper funding from Sacramento--including secession. This too, while largely a stunt meant to put pressure on state actors, is nevertheless a large philosophical question that is ultimately not really binding but serves more to highlight the county electorate’s mood. So yeah, as much as I rolled my eyes at it, I guess that too should be allowed.
I don’t understand why so many people jump to ‘what if Evil Company wants to build an asbestos factory next to people’s houses???’ when people like Matt are talking about allowing 4 story buildings instead of 3 or whatever.
It makes these discussions so annoying.
"The American Constitution embeds a fairly undemocratic set of institutional practices"
Would love to see a mailbag or article on this one!
It is 2023, we should be voting on our phones by now. Two factor authentication is much more secure than retired people checking printed registers. Also, this bridge collapse and rapid response and repair in Philadelphia shows what government is capable of when they act with a sense of urgency. It’s similar to FEMA after a hurricane. They need to do that all of the time. The private sector figured that out long ago, and those that don’t go out of business. Ultimately, the public bears the responsibility for holding our public institutions accountable. We aren’t doing that. We need to remind them where their money comes from and who their customers are.
1) If Voter ID was considered a big burden for people, what about "access to a phone that can do 2FA"
2) Given the current concerns about voting machines, voting on phones just seems way worse.