How effective is direct democracy in the USA?
Intro: To measure the effectiveness of a thing, we need to first of all identify its objective. What is the objective of direct democracy in the USA? Briefly explain your understanding of direct democracy and it's effectiveness. Give a couple of recent examples too.
Body: In each paragraph, make a point, explain the point, give a recent example and then give some analysis. Here's an example
-Direct democracy helps overcome legislative gridlock. (point made). Legislative gridlock happens when laws are not passed due to strong disagreement within Congress or between Congress and the President. Congress is becoming increasingly partisan i.e Republicans are generally becoming more conservative, while Democrats more liberal. (you could give an example here - e.g point out the vote in Congress on Obamacare where no Republican was in support)
This has made it very difficult to reach compromise and pass bills. (point explained) For example, most Americans agree with Democrats in that mandatory background checks should be carried out before a gun is sold. However most Republicans are in total disagreement - they believe that any kind of gun control is a violation of the right to 'bear arms' in the 2nd Amendment. As a result, there is legislative gridlock on issues such as gun control...but this is where direct democracy comes in. The public can effectively bypass Congress through initiatives and propositions. In 2014, Washington passed a gun control law through an initiative (read here) and now in 2015, Californians are looking to propose a similar measure.
However, let's think about the effect of letting the people decide. We have representatives in government to take fair decisions for the greater good. Giving the power of legislation to the people can lead to impulsive decisions flowing with the tide of public opinion, without considering long term effects or the impact on different people. For example, in the 1970s California held a referendum to limit its taxes...and this may have contributed to the high levels of debt the state sees today.... (perhaps give a more recent example here)
-Direct democracy helps establish accountability. Citizens can remove an elected official through a process known as the 'political recall'. Arguably, this tool will encourage politicians to become more representative of the electorate. Accountability is especially important in a country as polarised as the US - voters often choose candidates solely based on their party (check out straight-ticket voting) which can make candidates in safe seats feel invincible. However, to analyse this point think about how effective recalls are as a tool of accountability? The process is long, costly and difficult, and sometimes, the official who was recalled can win the election again!
-Direct democracy helps resolve controversial issues. Many politicians are career-minded and are thus unwilling to take decisions on contentious issues which could isolate a large part of the electorate. So they leave it to the majority to decide. However, allowing the majority to decide means that the voice of the minority is ignored. This is especially undemocratic when the majority wins because they had more funds to sponsor their campaign. Give a recent example here of when more money = more votes in direct democracy, which I'm sure you'll have no problem finding in American politics. You could also analyse the fairness of when the margin between the majority and minority vote is so tiny (eg a 51% majority and 49% minority). If only just a handful more people agree with a campaign, is it democratic to ignore the significant number of people who don't?
Conclusion: Do you think direct democracy is effective? Why and what evidence do you have to support your standpoint?
TOP TIP: A-level politics examiners appreciate it when you do not deviate from the question being asked. A good way to ensure you stay on track is to link each paragraph back to the question. eg '...Therefore, this demonstrates that direct democracy is/ is not effective in the USA' or '...As such, the effectiveness of direct democracy in the US is questionable.'
