Why are referendums held? Are they not inherently anti-democratic?

Question

One thing I've noticed is that people often speak favorably of referendums. I used to do so as well. My thinking was, what could be bad about an election that allows the people to directly vote on a particular issue? Whatever the majority wants, that's what'll happen. Isn't that what democracy is all about?

But recently, I've been thinking that referendums perhaps aren't a good idea at all. Because democracy isn't something as simple as a majority ruling. It's about a healthy system of collaborations and compromises which represents all agents of society, and especially including those who do not happen to belong to some majority group.

With that perspective, referendums seem to come off as inherently anti-democratic. After all, referendums are often binary, so imagine if 51 % of voters lean one way, and 49 % lean the other way (something we see quite often, see e.g. Brexit). Does it seem fair that 51 % get to dominate the other 49 %? How is that democratic?

These problems do not occur with ordinary political processes which are more inclusive and representative. Even if 51 % of voters manage to vote some party into taking the government, the other 49 % are still represented through various processes, be it a congress or a parliament or what have you.

So to end my question, what are the benefits of referendums that outweigh this inherent lack of democracy that they seem to promote?

Answer 1

Your argument is that referendums are anti-democratic because they suffer the flaw of "Oppression by the majority," a.k.a. "Tyranny of the majority." As it turns out, "Oppression by the majority" is among the most common criticisms of democracy itself, and it is an inherent feature of democracy. Referendums ARE democratic, and unfortunately suffer from multiple of the same pitfalls as democracy itself. However, referendums are contrary to liberal democracy, which prescribes "equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties and political freedoms for all people."

The tyranny of the majority (or tyranny of the masses) is an inherent weakness of majority rule in which the majority of an electorate can and does place its own interests above, and at the expense of, those in the minority. This results in oppression of minority groups comparable to that of a tyrant or despot, argued John Stuart Mill in his 1859 book On Liberty.

American founding father Alexander Hamilton, writing to Thomas Jefferson from the Constitutional Convention, argued the same fears regarding the use of pure direct democracy by the majority to elect a demagogue who, rather than work for the benefit of all citizens, set out to either harm those in the minority or work only for those of the upper echelon. The Electoral College mechanism present in the indirect United States presidential election system, and the phenomenon of faithless electors allowed for within it, was, in part, deliberately created as a safety measure not only to prevent such a scenario, but also to prevent the use of democracy to overthrow democracy for an authoritarian, dictatorial or other system of oppressive government.

Freedom and democracy are different. In words attributed to Scottish historian Alexander Tytler: 'A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury.' Democracy evolves into kleptocracy. A majority bullying a minority is just as bad as a dictator, communist or otherwise, doing so. Democracy is two coyotes and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.

My personal recommendation to overcome this particular pitfall is to combine democracy with strong limits on oppression by the majority. For instance, a referendum should never ask "Should the 49% be sold into slavery?" or "Should the 49% lose their right to vote?" There should be judicial review on all proposed referendums to ensure that none of the available choices infringe on civil rights or quality of life, either directly, or indirectly by creating or protecting economic institutions that promote inequality. This is a fundamental fix of Democracy, and should be built directly into a nation's Constitution.

Answer 2

Democracy is from the Greek “demos” (people) “kraita” (power/rule).

A referendum is a direct vote in which an entire electorate is invited to vote on a particular proposal.

So your position that a referendum “is not democratic” is unsupported. It meets the definition of democracy. As with everything in life, it is flawed. But that does not make it “inherently anti-democratic.”

And in the case of Brexit, the referendum was used as a democratic device of last resort. So even if you agree that referendums are not ideal, this was the only remaining democratic device left to try to resolve the issue.

On 9th June 2015, when other means to reach consensus on the EU had failed, our democratically elected representatives voted to hold a referendum. 544 to 53.

The people we elect to make decisions on our behalf voted amongst themselves to delegate the decision for Brexit to the people. Again, this is hardly undemocratic.

You mention inclusive processes and compromise. Brexit was the endpoint of a multi-decadal failure to compromise. For example: UK/EU migration policy moved against popular opinion for nearly two decades. You are entitled to disagree with the popular opinion, but if you are as concerned about democracy as your question implies you will quickly see my point here.

At any point before Brexit, policy (in any number of areas, not just in migration) could have been changed to better represent the views of the people, but it wasn’t. Partly this is due to the design of the EU, but there are other reasons too outside the scope of this answer.

Finally, enough democratic pressure was exerted via UKIP winning the European Elections in 2014 such that a referendum had to be offered by the Conservatives to avoid losing the democratic General Election in 2015.

This would be the first time the UK had ever had a direct say over UK membership of the EU since its creation in 1992. The conversion of the EC to the EU was not put to a vote in the UK. It could easily be argued that if there had been a failure of democracy it happened well before 2016.

Furthermore, on some issues, at their base, there is no compromise. You either have nuclear weapons, or you do not. You either have gay marriage or you do not. You are either a member of the EU, or you are not. So the lack of compromise in the 2016 vote is a characteristic of the burning question, and not indicative of a lack of democracy: Leave or Remain? Pick one.

And these problems do occur with “ordinary political processes” (your phrase). I might disagree with numerous policies the Government has in place. My view is not represented in those areas. Just like your view is not represented to your satisfaction in this area.

As to the benefits of referenda? They are simple, clear and unambiguous. The result is about as unarguable as we ever get if we believe in “people power” (aka democracy, aka the wisdom of crowds). But they can be disruptive. So they are typically reserved for big questions.

So in answer to your question: I reject the premise. Referenda are not anti-democratic. And Brexit wasn’t a failure of democracy: on the contrary it was democracy winning out after elected representatives had studiously ignored and neglected popular opinion since 1992.

Answer 3

Calling referendums in general anti-democratic is defenetly wrong. In some cases referendums are definitely more democratic than elections. Normaly referendums have some particiapation barriers, so only if some minimumn number (for example more then 50%) have participated the referendum becomes valid. For elections I don´t know about such barriers.

If talking about referendums, Brexit is not the best example. Switzerland has more than 1 referendum every year; they are part of their political system. Calling referendums anti-democratic would be the same as calling Switzerland anti-democratic. At least in Switzerland the referendums are seen as Direct Democracy.

Answer 4

Referendums are a way to poll the voting public for their views on specific issues. They can be useful tools for generating debate on an issue and determining the views of the public when they are unclear.

However, because democracy is not merely the rule of the majority and typically includes many checks and balances to limit the power of any individual, institution or instrument, referendums are often considered advisory or limited to very specific issues.

The Brexit referendum is an example of where these checks and balances broke down, producing an undemocratic result where the views of nearly half the population are being ignored.

One solution to this is to require a super majority. In that case a referendum is more like a stamp of approval for something that already has widespread support, and enhances democracy by introducing an additional check on the actions of elected officials.

Answer 5

In addition to what has already been stated, the person asking seems to forget that there are many checks and balances in certain ways a referendum can be implemented. When it comes to direct democracy in certain states in the US, it requires more than simply proposing a law for an election and getting 51% of the vote to have a referendum pass. Some require a certain number of signatures to start off to even be put on a ballot. Some states when it comes to things like a veto referendum require a certain number of signatures and votes to suspend a law, then a certain number of signatures and votes before said law can be permanently vetoed. Some referendums and forms of direct democracy for proposing laws even require a supermajority up to 2/3rds of the voting population to be passed, so in those situations it isn't as simple as a mob of the 51% telling the 49% that their vote doesn't matter. While referendums and direct democracies are not perfect, people have been able to adjust them so not every situation instantly becomes mob rule and still contains checks & balances that prevents a slight majority from pushing around the minority.

Another example is referendums in Massachussetts. You can present a referendum if you have a supermajority of people think it is a good idea, but the initiative can't be related to religion or restrict the Declaration of Rights in the state constitution. After that, people can potentially vote on it. This allows people to hold state-level referendums but applies enough restrictions to prevent people from taking away someone's rights in a vote or simply pushing people around by having 51% wanting something to become a law or having a supermajority pass a new state law on a whim.

Answer 6

In government systems that use Referendums, the means of getting the question to the ballot or even what types of questions make it to the ballot are often restricted. Usually a certain thresh hold of support for placing a question on the ballot must be demonstrated (often by petitions). While this is often a small subset of the population (In Switzerland, a referendum requires signatures of 50,000 or 100,000 citizens (0.675% or 1.25% of the 8 million+ population. The difference is based on where the law originated from, with laws originating in the legislature requiring lesser signatures than laws written by the people) to reach the ballot. That doesn't necessarily mean support. One can sign the petition to have a popular vote and accept the outcome of the vote either way because you're indifferent to the matter but would prefer the people decide. Others require mandatory referendums based on certain actions (in Switzerland, any attempt to join an international organization or to amend the constitution requires a referendum. Many U.S. states require a state referendum on amendments to the state constitution.). In addition, the referendum might require certain thresholds above simple majority to be met to considered passing (In Switzerland, again, federal amendments to the constitution must pass by super-majority vote and all federal laws must pass a double majority vote - that is, not only must the national popular vote pass with a certain majority, it must pass with a majority in a number of Cantons (the state level equivalent in Switzerland) equal to a threshold of majority, so a constitutional amendment must pass with 2/3rds of the ballots cast in favor, there must be 18 of the 26 cantons where the simple majority of ballots cast were cast in favor of the amendment.

Other areas with Referendums as part of governance have restrictions on what issues can be changed by referendum. While all 50 U.S. States have several levels of direct democracy, they do not all grant citizens the right to vote on all issues. Obviously those things reserved to the federal government are right out (I.E. citizenship and immigration issues) as are restrictions on governments in the constitution (Bill of Rights Amendments). But additionally some states limit it to only laws originating in the legislature or do not allow for recall voting for example.

And in spite all this, you have to somehow pay for the new law you're enacting. Sure, you can vote for a ban on sugary drinks, but most governments restrict the power of the purse to the legislature. They don't have to pay the enforcement of a ban on soda, despite the will of the people wanting it banned.

Answer 7

Democracy in nations are generally representative and not direct. They are much too big for the latter to work effectively. Perhaps this might change with the new technologies of social media. But given their record so far, no-one is going to trust them with democracy. This lies far in the future.

However, certain questions are too large for representatives to handle and are put to the nation. For example, Scottish Independence. I don't regard them as anti-democratic. These questions are important enough that there will have been extensive debate, so one can hardly say the populace are not informed.