Fair vote watch doesn't like my call for more demand-revealing referenda. People, he says, are too stupid to understand complicated issues. Such referenda would therefore lead to a (voluntary) "disenfranchisement of the dumb."
This is a stronger allegation than you might think - because we would lose a lot if stupid people don't vote.
Well-informed people aren't necessarily better decision-makers than averagely-informed ones - maybe the opposite. The problem is the overconfidence bias. As we get more evidence, our confidence in our judgment rises by more than does the accuracy of that judgment. In a study of psychologists in this classic book, Stuart Oskamp wrote:
As [psychologists] received more information, their confidence soared. Furthermore, their certainty about their own decisions became entirely out of proportion to the actual correctness of those decisions...it can clearly be concluded that a psychologist's increasing feelings of confidence as he works through a case are not a sure sign of increasing accuracy for his conclusions.
Maybe the career of Baroness Warnock - as interpreted through Melanie Phillips' filter - provides evidence of this.
If this is right, demand-revealing referenda might involve small numbers of people voting large sums that lead to poor decisions. Maybe, then, Fair Vote Watch is even more right than he seems.
Why, then, do I still support such referenda? Three reasons.
1. They make us happy. Bruno Frey - whose work you really should read - has found a "sizeable positive correlation between the extent of direct democracy rights and people's subjective well-being."
2. They change the political culture. They take responsibility away from politicians and give it to the people. The Sharpener sees this as a problem. I see it as a big improvement. This is especially true as politicians are increasingly a class apart from the rest of us - and the distinction between them and us is not based upon their superior knowledge, judgment or compassion.
3. This shift in responsibility would encourage people to think more clearly. Katie's comments on Fair Vote Watch's post are, I think, spot-on. People are as intelligent as they need to be - they respond to incentives, eventually. Treat 'em as sheep and they'll act like sheep. Force 'em to think and they will do so. My point here is Alexis de Tocqueville's. Democracy, he said, changes the character of a people, for the better:
Democracy does not give the people the most skillful government, but it produces what the ablest governments are frequently unable to create: namely, an all-pervading and restless activity, a superabundant force, and an energy which is inseparable from it and which may, however unfavorable circumstances may be, produce wonders. These are the true advantages of democracy...If you hold it expedient to divert the moral and intellectual activity of man to the production of comfort and the promotion of general well-being; if a clear understanding be more profitable to man than genius; if your object is not to stimulate the virtues of heroism, but the habits of peace; if you had rather witness vices than crimes, and are content to meet with fewer noble deeds, provided offenses be diminished in the same proportion; if, instead of living in the midst of a brilliant society, you are contented to have prosperity around you; if, in short, you are of the opinion that the principal object of a government is not to confer the greatest possible power and glory upon the body of the nation, but to ensure the greatest enjoyment and to avoid the most misery to each of the individuals who compose it--if such be your desire, then equalize the conditions of men and establish democratic institutions.
The long-run benefits of direct democracy might, therefore, be rather greater than the short-run ones.
Between me getting on at you about CBI, and Jarndyce about referendums - I'd start getting paranoid if I was you!
The use of Tocqueville's a little cheeky in defence of absolutist democracy. He admired democracy, but with a distinct coolness, very aware of what was being lost from the Ancien Regime. My guess is he'd be go back to a line towards the end of DiA to explain why he'd be sceptical: "our contemporaries are constantly excited by two conflicting passions: they want to be led, and they wish to remain free."
Posted by: Blimpish | June 09, 2005 at 02:42 PM
Thank you for the Baroness Warlock reference. That a Tory government should trust any serious issue to that intellectually frivolous, conceited ass is very vexing. I'd like to know why she changed her mind - it can't only be a relish to be in the papers again. Perhaps someone in her family or her circle of acquaintance had a bad experience with her preposterous system? It's hard to believe that governance that involved massive use of referendums would result in a decision as stupid as hers.
Posted by: dearieme | June 09, 2005 at 03:16 PM
To be allowed to be wrong is the most important right!
It's the ability of Democracy to make decisions for those citizens that oppose those decisions that is total democracies biggest weakness.
It would be amusing if for every referendum, you could before the voting, submit a form strongly opposing one of the decisions, if the referendum goes against you, you get compensated for your emigration costs, but lose citizenship...
Posted by: Rob Read | June 09, 2005 at 04:11 PM
My argument, note, isn't against complex systems as such, only unnecessarily complex ones. I argued here (http://www.thesharpener.net/?p=52) for a relatively complicated system of PR. This would, IMHO, demand increased public participation and engagement, as well as responsiveness from the elected, without the need for regular referenda. I will read the Frey paper, though, with an open mind.
Posted by: Jarndyce | June 09, 2005 at 04:29 PM
I hadn't even thought of the wisdom of the crowds argument...three cheers for decision markets.
Posted by: Katie | June 09, 2005 at 04:31 PM
That's very interesting about Mary Warnock. I have a little anecdote.
I went to a Cambridge college where she was mistress. She had the habit of inviting new undergrads to her flat in groups for drinks. She then circulated around the groups chatting to the undergrads.
When she got to my group, she spoke for several minutes to the person next to me about the subject this student was reading (anthropolgy). She then turned to me and asked "and what are you reading"? "Economics" I replied.
She stalked off with barely another word. She clearly had very strong opinions about economists. After that episode I had fairly strong opinions about Baroness Warnock and the weight I attached to her judgement.
Posted by: rjw | June 09, 2005 at 05:52 PM
The problem is that direct democracy is impossible, except in a decentralized system where most political decisions are made in face-to-face meetings of the people affected by them.
We're biologically engineered for life in a primate social grouping of a few dozen. So by nature, we're very well informed on the doings of our families, friends and coworkers, and to some extent of our neighborhood or town. Most people don't have a lot of energy or time left over for worrying about the doings of people they've never met, making policy in some office a thousand miles away. For the people actually making policy, on the other hand, the policy elites ARE their primary social grouping, and policy issues are primary material for gossip. So those running the state/corporation will always have an advantage on inside information, agenda-setting, etc.
I'm all for direct democracy. But the way to achieve it is to decentralize most political issues to the neighorhood or town meeting, and the cooperatively-managed workplace, so that the very existence of centralized organizations is minimized. Once they exist, their control by a ruling class is inevitable.
Posted by: Kevin Carson | June 10, 2005 at 02:21 AM
I find your use of De Tocqueville in support of referenda really weird. Given his worries about atomisation and centralisation, and his strong support for local deliberative government, surely he would have been terrified by the idea of referenda, which would allow the expression of an opinion without being schooled in their use. Although the language isn't the same, Kevin's point above seems rather apposite here.
Posted by: Rob | June 10, 2005 at 10:56 AM
The country with the greatest amount of direct democracy (as far as I know, anyway) is Switzerland with their system of national and cantonal referenda. Not a noticeably badly governed country really.
Posted by: Tim Worstall | June 10, 2005 at 11:22 AM
Rob, Blimpish: You're right about de Tocqueville. I only dragged him in as support for the vague hypothesis that the form of government can change the character of a people - no more than that.
Kevin - I agree entirely. The trouble is that there will remain some issues (such as decisions to go to war or enter international treaties) that can only be taken at a national level. For these, surely, referenda are a way of weakening the power of a political elite. Unless, that is, we break-up nation-states...
Posted by: chris | June 10, 2005 at 11:28 AM
Oops, I may owe an apology re my comment on B. Warnock. Sorry, Conservatives, this morning's paper makes it look likely that it was a Labour government that she reported to.
Posted by: dearieme | June 10, 2005 at 04:50 PM