We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
It may be assumed at the outset that any government based on the democratic principle should, regardless of the form it may take, reflect existing public opinion. The actual method by which expression may be given to the will of the people is of secondary importance. We have relied, in the past, and are still relying on representative institutions for the performance of this prime function of democratic government. Although satisfactory results have, on most occasions, been obtained, numerous instances are on record in which the action of the people's representatives has been at variance with definitely formulated public opinion. Such instances have been pointed to by critics as indicating serious defects in the working of the representative system.
To remedy these defects the devices known as the initiative and referendum were conceived and incorporated into many state constitutions. These instruments of government enable the voters, by means of the ballot, to supplant or supplement laws enacted by their representatives by laws of their own making. They were designed not to overthrow representative government but to prevent its diversion from its proper sphere of activity. When legislation does not seem to conform to public opinion the people may, by direct exercise of the law-making power, correct the error by popular vote, and the result is to be taken as the final word in determining what the will of the people really is on the subject in point. Public opinion is thus to find expression in the will of the electorate through the balloting process.
1 See Lowell, A. L., Public Opinion and Popular Government, pp. 4–7.Google Scholar Mr. Judson King, one of the ablest advocates of direct government, declares that the initiative and referendum are designed to “clear the way for the rule of the numerical majority.” “New Dangers to Majority Rule,” p. 4.
2 The Social Contract (Tozer, edition), pp. 200–201.Google Scholar
3 Rhode Island requires a majority of three-fifths and New Hampshire a two-thirds majority. See Dealey, J. Q., Growth of American State Constitutions, p. 141.Google Scholar
4 Following are the States: South Dakota, Oregon, Montana, Oklahoma, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Arkansas, Colorado, California, Arizona, Nevada, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio, Washington, North Dakota and Maryland.
5 W. F. Dodd, Revision and Amendment of State Constitutions, Appendix.
6 For the statistics see Lowell, , Public Opinion and Popular Government, pp. 368–369.Google Scholar
7 Dodd, , Revision and Amendment of State Constitutions, p. 279.Google Scholar
8 Fairlie, J. A., Referendum and Initiative in Michigan. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 43, 148 (Sept., 1912).Google Scholar
9 See an article by the author on the “Working of the State-wide Referendum in Illinois,” American Political Science Review, Vol. V, 394 (1911).
10 An illustration somewhat to the point may be found in a recent election held in the city of Cincinnati when an ordinance granting a twenty-five year franchise to a street railway company was submitted for popular ratification. The ordinance was considered by many to be unduly unfavorable to the company and the prediction was current that if a large vote could be obtained it would be defeated. This prediction was verified by the results, for the measure was rejected with a much larger total vote than was anticipated.
11 A small vote may, of course, indicate the absence of a clearly defined public opinion on the proposition. This is likely to be true when questions of a technical nature are submitted.
12 “The Initiative and Referendum,” Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science, Oct. 26, 1912, p. 158.
13 Such a provision would not have defeated a single measure of the fiftyone constitutional amendments and statutes adopted by popular vote in Oregon during the period 1904–1914. For the votes see Barnett, J. D., The Operation of the Initiative, Referendum and Recall in Oregon, pp. 241–253.Google Scholar
14 See Beard and Shultz, Documents of the Initiative, Referendum and Recall, for detailed provisions in each of the States.
15 It may be added that when provision is made for direct legislation in local government the percentages required for initiation or reference are almost invariably higher than for the State as a whole. If 10 per cent is deemed adequate for the State the local requirement is usually 15 per cent or more.
16 In 1910 three questions were submitted in this State under the law above mentioned. The labor involved in obtaining the requisite number of signatures represented three months work at a cost of $7000 although 2800 volunteer workers were in the field.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.