Preferences, Priorities, and Plebiscites
Lynn A. Baker
University of Texas School of Law
November 1, 2003
13 Journal of Contemporary Legal issues 317 (2004)
U of Texas Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 56
This Essay, which was prepared for a symposium on "Direct Democracy" at the University of San Diego School of Law, explores a "populist" critique of plebiscites: that they "cannot be trusted to reflect the voice of the people accurately or meaningfully." At the center of the critique are two concerns: that previous discussions of plebiscites have been based on a too narrow understanding of "what it means to hear the voice of the people," and that "single-issue direct democracy lacks a mechanism for reflecting voter priorities among issues." The Essay examines both claims and ultimately finds them unpersuasive. The Essay concludes with an examination of the related claim that the mere availability of direct democracy distorts the "voice of the people" as expressed through candidate elections and representative lawmaking, and concludes that representative lawmaking need not be exclusive.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 24
Keywords: direct democracy, legislation, referenda, voting, initiatives
JEL Classification: K1, K10, K30
Date posted: December 1, 2003 ; Last revised: October 13, 2015
© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 0.203 seconds