Jonathan Hoffman: Constitutional republics superior to straight democracies

Contrary to what you may hear, our form of government is not a democracy; rather, it is a constitutional republic, and the differences are significant. It seems that the movement to scrap the republic in favor of a straight democracy is gaining steam. From the attacks on the electoral college to exploiting the ballot prop, our form of government is in jeopardy. How is this bad? Let us count the ways.

First, many laws, particularly at the higher levels of government, involve issues of some complexity. Most people have enough to do taking care of their families and communities, contributing to the economy through their work, and inventing the next great product or service.

When in-depth research into proposed changes in the law is your job (as in a legislator), you tend to have more time for it. You also have the benefit of lobbyists who will provide you with information from all sides.

So we hire representatives to do this work on our behalf.

On the other hand, if the people vote directly on every bill, they will be taking time from the more important work of their daily lives. They will not process the same amount of information as their representative, and may be unduly influenced by bumper sticker-type catch phrases.

The idea that voting expresses the true collective will of the people is wishful thinking. After the initial fascination, people will lose interest and turnout will decline.

Then, for example, if there was a vote to expand educational opportunities for primary education outside the government-operated districts, you would probably find a disproportionately high turnout among teacher union members as compared to the general population, possibly affecting the outcome.

I asked my friend Taylor Davidson, managing director of the Bastiat Society (Tucson chapter), about his thoughts on the subject. He said, “The problem with majority rules is that (by definition) they exclude the heterodox, the individual, the innovator. They replace the considered judgment of people and their particular, complex, nuanced circumstances, for the mob sentiment of some moment.

“This all gets so much worse when you realize that in fact, given the reality of electoral systems, we are far more often being ruled by small pluralities masquerading as ‘majorities’ rather than by anything approaching a real majority,” he said.

Is there any real-world evidence to support Taylor’s statement? Glad you asked. Speaking of educational opportunities and teacher unions, The Save Our Schools Arizona (SOSA) outfit is organizing a drive to secure a ballot proposition for the next election.

SOSA’s mission statement consists of three sentences all of which focus on “strong public schools ... public dollars in public schools ... full funding of public schools”. Since SOSA is no fan of charter schools, I think using the term “government” instead of “public” would be more accurate.

The ballot prop will include capping the number of empowerment savings accounts (ESAs) to 1 percent of the public schools’ (government and charters) population, prevent the addition of new categories, and require all funds to be spent in Arizona — this last one targets the children of the Navajo Nation where the only alternative facilities are just over the border in New Mexico.

SOSA will not lobby the Legislature because it knows that the effort would be futile, the programs are too successful. However, with one of those “small pluralities masquerading as ‘majorities,’” they might get the victory they seek. Though the bumper stickers will speak of “the children,” it will be that small plurality composed of teacher unions, statists, and anyone with a monetary interest in district schools, who will turn out in droves and carry the day.

Do you feel any better about representative government?