I read someplace that most Americans want some form of gun control although I’m not sure how true that is I also read that most Americans think women should have the right to abortions also I don’t know how true that is.in the uk if it’s a massive decision we have a yes no referendum where everyone votes and the majority win why don’t they have this in America ?
35 comments
We don’t have a mechanism for national referenda.
How’d that last big referendum work out for you?
EDIT – I don’t mean that as mockery. Just pointing out that having a referendum doesn’t necessarily guarantee a good or agreeably “democratic” outcome. All it does is ask *everyone who cares to respond* what they think, frame the issue in a reductive binary, and thoughtlessly give that kinda-sorta-not really majority whatever it wants.
Basically, the US is still using our original constitution from the 1700s, made an era where the idea was that only rich landowning men would get to vote, and that they would vote for politicians who would represent their needs. Changing our system to allow for national referendums would be incredibly difficult, as it would require rewriting our Constitution, and we aren’t going to be able to do that since it would require an overwhelming majority of our national politicians to agree on it.
Referendums aren’t part of our legal process on a national level. It’s just not how our government works.
Some states do have a similar process though.
1) we don’t have a mechanism for that. All issues are handled indirectly through the legislature, who we’re supposed to elect on individual character and judgement rather than party affiliation (for early elections, we even voted for Electors for president without them explicitly acknowledging who they prefer). Our country is set up more like the HRE than Switzerland, so we’re not supposed to interfere with the rights and privileges of people in other states
2) it wouldn’t work. “Some form” of gun control isn’t a ballot-ready question. “Some right” to abortion isn’t a ballot-ready question, and a plurality support a 15-week limit (much stricter than people were used to). I suppose we could ranked-choice it, but we’re never going to be at Switzerland level where national funding for projects in individual cantons/states is a national referendum (and we shouldn’t get there)
3) America is a vetoocracy. Any of several groups can essentially get veto power. Just wanting something implemented because a majority want it, rather than a broad spectrum of support from all different classes and regions, is antithetical to the best path to preserving freedom
Edit: also, why should the majority be able to screw over everyone? How’s that 3.78% margin on Brexit working out for you? Or the 10% scottish independence margin predicated on the remainders being predicted to win?
Some states do.
But broadly speaking, a major intent of our constitutional structure is to put certain fundamental rights beyond majoritarian control. Referenda are fine for certain questions around the margins, but what if a majority of the population wanted to ban a particular religion, or to criminalize certain speech, or to remove legal rights from a group of minorities? It doesn’t matter if 80%, or 67%, or 51% of the population wants to do that; it shouldn’t be done.
Referenda for things like (to pick one example) marijuana legalization are defensible, and in fact some states have done exactly that. But not just every major question can or should be put to a popular vote.
>I read someplace that most Americans want some form of gun control
We do have some form of gun control. The idea that there are no laws, controls, etc in place is a farce.
What Americans cannot agree on the is the level of gun control required/desired.
That said, we have no mechanism for national referendums, and I personally don’t want one either.
They don’t exist in the US system. Although some states have ballot measures, which are similar.
Because referendums don’t actually work.
Running a country is a remarkably complex task that involves compromise and lots of planning.
A referendum is like a monkey wrench being thrown into the gears.
When ballot initiatives/referendums are used it’s almost always a sign that the underlining governance structure is breaking down. The legislative body is abdicating their authority because they are unwilling to publicly commit to a stance and work out a compromise.
The issue isn’t why hasn’t XYZ become law, it’s why hasn’t the legislature worked on a solution and communicated that to the public.
Such referendums can theoretically be a stop gap measure but it’s a terrible long term solution.
[edit – although locally ballot referendums are often used because they are required by charter/state constitution for very specific things which in itself isn’t as big of an issue as national referendums due to their severely limited scope]
Some states have referenda procedures. In fact a couple of red states (Ohio and I believe Missouri) are getting ballot measures on abortion soon. At the national level, there’s no such mechanism. We have a system where states have a lot (way too much, in my view) of autonomy to do whatever they want.
As for gun control, a bugaboo there is that our court system takes a very broad view of the Second Amendment and won’t allow many restrictions on firearms to stand.
Some states allow state level or local level referendums. It’s not a thing on the national level.
We’re a federation, which means that the federal government has very little control over laws compared to the states. States do have referenda (or ballot measures/ballot questions/state questions/propositions, depending on where you live), where you can present a yes/no question and if you get a certain amount of signatures (again, depends on the state) it’ll be added to the ballot and if the majority votes yes, your change will be implemented. This is how my state legalized medical marijuana, for instance.
Part of it might be that neither of your two example questions are yes or no questions, or at least aren’t simple yes or no answers.
Most people want some kind of gun control? Sure, but what kind? No guns at all? All guns must be registered? Guns are legal to carry anywhere?
Same with abortion… No abortion at all? No abortion except in rape/ medically necessary? Abortion before x amount of weeks, no questions asked?
People agree on the broad topics, but not the specifics.
Congress and the states would most likely have to pass a constitutional amendment giving us the ability to vote of referendums.
Even then, it’s probably not a good idea. California of all places banned gay marriage in 2008. I don’t trust American voters to not be swayed by misinformation.
We don’t really have a constitutional mechanism for referendums at the national level, the government just isn’t set up this way. Some states have them for state-level stuff, and in particular for your abortion example Kansas last year rejected via referendum a constitutional amendment that would have removed the right to have an abortion. And for a much more anodyne example I have voted in multiple state referendums in Texas about property taxes lol.
Putting the civil rights of a minority up for a popular referendum is a horrific idea.
At the State level we have lots of referendi.
There is a specific mechanism for changing the Constitution, but it does not make allowances for national referendi.
I can ask you the same about Brexit or why the NHS is constantly being defunded. Did the majority of UK citizens agree to these things?
Because that would be unconstitutional.
We don’t have anything where Americans vote on things nationwide. Even for the presidential elections, the vote is within the state.
There’s no mechanism to vote using a nationwide referendum. It might even be unconstitutional. Laws on the national level have to be voted on by Congress and approved by the president and a referendum doesn’t really fit into that. States can do stuff like that though. I believe Kentucky voted on the abortion issue last November when they had their elections. Maybe it was Kansas. Or both, idk.
Abortion is in a weird spot where it was allowed due to a supreme court decision a few decades ago that had a very shaky justification. Now it is more of a state issue, afaik.
To enshrine a right to abortions, a new constitutional amendment would likely need to be introduced and pass. And amendment needs 2/3 of both houses of Congress to be proposed, and then ratified by 3/4 of the states. Similarly, for total gun control, you would need to repeal the 2nd amendment which would require a new amendment using the same process.
Otherwise, abortion and most gun control is an issue at the state level.
I genuinely don’t know. I wish they’d bring that to American political culture. The people should decide the issues
We have them on a state level, but not on a national level. Doing a national referendum could interfere with states’ rights.
We have those in certain states, but not at the federal level. At the federal level the only thing all Americans vote for at the same time is POTUS and the House, and even that is only every four years. Not even the Senate has all its seats come up for election at once (roughly ⅓ every two years).
It’s impractical to suggest that all 50 states plus DC and the various US territories would all vote similarly to one another, or even any handful.
California has a referendum (or “proposition”) system. Thanks to that, 75% of things I buy have a sticker on them warning they contain cancer causing chemicals, whether they actually do or not.
Two reasons.
A.) People are stupid.
B.) Civil rights should not be left up to the whims and fancies of the trending.
10th Amendment
Legislation should reflect the rules that already exist in our society and codify them.
Codify rules that people do not broadly agree on is fundamentally undemocratic. It is one side trying to dominate the other through power rather than debating the ideas.
Cause we’re a massive country with lots of people and that’d be stupidly expensive for to do referendums everytime there’s a major issue
We dont live by Mob Rule.
Many states do have referendums.
There is nothing in our political system that allows for a federal referendum. (Not even voting for President.)
Completing a referendum does not cause the contentious issue to go away. You mentioned you’re from Scotland; that would be like telling everyone to stop talking about indyref or Brexit because it’s done and final and you don’t get to have an opinion anymore. I’m sure you’ll agree with me when I say: fuck that.
I have voted in state level referendum and state level people’s initiative.
You would need to amend the constitution. The text of the second amendment would have to be changed. That process is long and difficult, but it can be done.
But, you would need “most” of the people in 2/3s of the states. Not just “most” of the people in California and New York.
Not even close at this point in time.
No mechanism for it in the constitution, and as someone who would be in favor of adding referendums (in fact I think all constitutional amendments should be voted by referendum instead of by Congress) I don’t think Congress wants to give more power to the people.
States already do this. It’s how weed got legalized in a lot of states.
Many states do. I mean one of the runnibg jokes about California and most Southwestern states is they seem to have a referendum about abything and everything.