Why are there no referendums in the US? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowHow can the federal United States congress conduct a public referendum vote?Do referendums lead to significantly different decisions than when decisions are taken by parliament?Are there examples of when Parliament decided against the results of a Referendum?What are the rules of what goes into referenda in Switzerland?Is there a ballot Initiative at the Federal level?Why do major referendums have a 50% threshold to change the status quo, rather than a higher value?Why were so many referendums about marriage definition initiated in the recent years?For the 2017 Catalan independence referendum, are there any turnout estimates counting only polling stations where voters were actually able to vote?What are the reasons for not having a voter turnout threshold for a nation-wide referendum?Why are there so many Republican governors?Why are referendums held? Are they not inherently anti-democratic?

What flight has the highest ratio of time difference to flight time?

How to solve a differential equation with a term to a power?

What is the result of assigning to std::vector<T>::begin()?

If Nick Fury and Coulson already knew about aliens (Kree and Skrull) why did they wait until Thor's appearance to start making weapons?

Why has the US not been more assertive in confronting Russia in recent years?

Why do airplanes bank sharply to the right after air-to-air refueling?

Is there an analogue of projective spaces for proper schemes?

How to invert MapIndexed on a ragged structure? How to construct a tree from rules?

Why am I allowed to create multiple unique pointers from a single object?

Limits on contract work without pre-agreed price/contract (UK)

What exact does MIB represent in SNMP? How is it different from OID?

Inappropriate reference requests from Journal reviewers

Do I need to enable Dev Hub in my PROD Org?

How do I go from 300 unfinished/half written blog posts, to published posts?

What is ( CFMCC ) on ILS approach chart?

WOW air has ceased operation, can I get my tickets refunded?

Is it ever safe to open a suspicious html file (e.g. email attachment)?

Why do we use the plural of movies in this phrase "We went to the movies last night."?

Does it take more energy to get to Venus or to Mars?

Interfacing a button to MCU (and PC) with 50m long cable

Return the Closest Prime Number

What's the best way to handle refactoring a big file?

What was the first Unix version to run on a microcomputer?

Is it professional to write unrelated content in an almost-empty email?



Why are there no referendums in the US?



The Next CEO of Stack OverflowHow can the federal United States congress conduct a public referendum vote?Do referendums lead to significantly different decisions than when decisions are taken by parliament?Are there examples of when Parliament decided against the results of a Referendum?What are the rules of what goes into referenda in Switzerland?Is there a ballot Initiative at the Federal level?Why do major referendums have a 50% threshold to change the status quo, rather than a higher value?Why were so many referendums about marriage definition initiated in the recent years?For the 2017 Catalan independence referendum, are there any turnout estimates counting only polling stations where voters were actually able to vote?What are the reasons for not having a voter turnout threshold for a nation-wide referendum?Why are there so many Republican governors?Why are referendums held? Are they not inherently anti-democratic?










17















The US has a (self-imposed) reputation of being a supremely democratic and free country.



However, unlike many other democratic countries on the planet, the US has never had any national referendums.



How come? If these are not allowed, what is the logic behind that?



Although referendums can be a dangerous thing (see Brexit), almost every democratic country on the planet agrees that if properly held and if requiring a proper majority (at least a two-third majority), referendums are the perfect way to advance the interests of the public.



Why does the US disagree?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Name is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.















  • 42





    almost every democratic country on the planet agrees that if properly held and if requiring a proper majority (at least a two-third majority), referendums are the perfect way to advance the interests of the public Really? Do you have a citation for that, in particular about the "almost every democratic country" part?

    – Abigail
    2 days ago







  • 8





    @Name Do you have a citation for the assertion that "most countries have referendums" or "more democratic countries have referendums"?

    – owjburnham
    2 days ago






  • 9





    "The US has a (self-imposed) reputation of being a supremely democratic..." You're right that many or most Americans see it this way, but it would be interesting to trace back where it comes from. At it's founding, it was not designed to be "supremely" democratic, but to be somewhat democratic. There is a great deal in the Constitution tying the hands of the government and limiting the power of the general populace to gang up on any particular target citizens. It must have been a popular idea by the time the Senate was changed to direct election.

    – jpmc26
    2 days ago







  • 5





    Maybe they've seen what happens when badly run and unclear referenda are held on divisive topics and turn into anger-venting mechanisms? Can't think of any recent examples of that though.

    – thosphor
    yesterday






  • 3





    I'd challenge the implication that the US is supremely democratic. It's certainly something that people like to say because it sounds nice, but practically any ranking of world-wide democracy puts the US fairly far from the top.

    – Birjolaxew
    yesterday
















17















The US has a (self-imposed) reputation of being a supremely democratic and free country.



However, unlike many other democratic countries on the planet, the US has never had any national referendums.



How come? If these are not allowed, what is the logic behind that?



Although referendums can be a dangerous thing (see Brexit), almost every democratic country on the planet agrees that if properly held and if requiring a proper majority (at least a two-third majority), referendums are the perfect way to advance the interests of the public.



Why does the US disagree?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Name is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.















  • 42





    almost every democratic country on the planet agrees that if properly held and if requiring a proper majority (at least a two-third majority), referendums are the perfect way to advance the interests of the public Really? Do you have a citation for that, in particular about the "almost every democratic country" part?

    – Abigail
    2 days ago







  • 8





    @Name Do you have a citation for the assertion that "most countries have referendums" or "more democratic countries have referendums"?

    – owjburnham
    2 days ago






  • 9





    "The US has a (self-imposed) reputation of being a supremely democratic..." You're right that many or most Americans see it this way, but it would be interesting to trace back where it comes from. At it's founding, it was not designed to be "supremely" democratic, but to be somewhat democratic. There is a great deal in the Constitution tying the hands of the government and limiting the power of the general populace to gang up on any particular target citizens. It must have been a popular idea by the time the Senate was changed to direct election.

    – jpmc26
    2 days ago







  • 5





    Maybe they've seen what happens when badly run and unclear referenda are held on divisive topics and turn into anger-venting mechanisms? Can't think of any recent examples of that though.

    – thosphor
    yesterday






  • 3





    I'd challenge the implication that the US is supremely democratic. It's certainly something that people like to say because it sounds nice, but practically any ranking of world-wide democracy puts the US fairly far from the top.

    – Birjolaxew
    yesterday














17












17








17


2






The US has a (self-imposed) reputation of being a supremely democratic and free country.



However, unlike many other democratic countries on the planet, the US has never had any national referendums.



How come? If these are not allowed, what is the logic behind that?



Although referendums can be a dangerous thing (see Brexit), almost every democratic country on the planet agrees that if properly held and if requiring a proper majority (at least a two-third majority), referendums are the perfect way to advance the interests of the public.



Why does the US disagree?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Name is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












The US has a (self-imposed) reputation of being a supremely democratic and free country.



However, unlike many other democratic countries on the planet, the US has never had any national referendums.



How come? If these are not allowed, what is the logic behind that?



Although referendums can be a dangerous thing (see Brexit), almost every democratic country on the planet agrees that if properly held and if requiring a proper majority (at least a two-third majority), referendums are the perfect way to advance the interests of the public.



Why does the US disagree?







united-states referendum






share|improve this question









New contributor




Name is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




Name is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 2 days ago









Martin Schröder

1,1681933




1,1681933






New contributor




Name is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 2 days ago









NameName

9713




9713




New contributor




Name is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Name is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Name is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







  • 42





    almost every democratic country on the planet agrees that if properly held and if requiring a proper majority (at least a two-third majority), referendums are the perfect way to advance the interests of the public Really? Do you have a citation for that, in particular about the "almost every democratic country" part?

    – Abigail
    2 days ago







  • 8





    @Name Do you have a citation for the assertion that "most countries have referendums" or "more democratic countries have referendums"?

    – owjburnham
    2 days ago






  • 9





    "The US has a (self-imposed) reputation of being a supremely democratic..." You're right that many or most Americans see it this way, but it would be interesting to trace back where it comes from. At it's founding, it was not designed to be "supremely" democratic, but to be somewhat democratic. There is a great deal in the Constitution tying the hands of the government and limiting the power of the general populace to gang up on any particular target citizens. It must have been a popular idea by the time the Senate was changed to direct election.

    – jpmc26
    2 days ago







  • 5





    Maybe they've seen what happens when badly run and unclear referenda are held on divisive topics and turn into anger-venting mechanisms? Can't think of any recent examples of that though.

    – thosphor
    yesterday






  • 3





    I'd challenge the implication that the US is supremely democratic. It's certainly something that people like to say because it sounds nice, but practically any ranking of world-wide democracy puts the US fairly far from the top.

    – Birjolaxew
    yesterday













  • 42





    almost every democratic country on the planet agrees that if properly held and if requiring a proper majority (at least a two-third majority), referendums are the perfect way to advance the interests of the public Really? Do you have a citation for that, in particular about the "almost every democratic country" part?

    – Abigail
    2 days ago







  • 8





    @Name Do you have a citation for the assertion that "most countries have referendums" or "more democratic countries have referendums"?

    – owjburnham
    2 days ago






  • 9





    "The US has a (self-imposed) reputation of being a supremely democratic..." You're right that many or most Americans see it this way, but it would be interesting to trace back where it comes from. At it's founding, it was not designed to be "supremely" democratic, but to be somewhat democratic. There is a great deal in the Constitution tying the hands of the government and limiting the power of the general populace to gang up on any particular target citizens. It must have been a popular idea by the time the Senate was changed to direct election.

    – jpmc26
    2 days ago







  • 5





    Maybe they've seen what happens when badly run and unclear referenda are held on divisive topics and turn into anger-venting mechanisms? Can't think of any recent examples of that though.

    – thosphor
    yesterday






  • 3





    I'd challenge the implication that the US is supremely democratic. It's certainly something that people like to say because it sounds nice, but practically any ranking of world-wide democracy puts the US fairly far from the top.

    – Birjolaxew
    yesterday








42




42





almost every democratic country on the planet agrees that if properly held and if requiring a proper majority (at least a two-third majority), referendums are the perfect way to advance the interests of the public Really? Do you have a citation for that, in particular about the "almost every democratic country" part?

– Abigail
2 days ago






almost every democratic country on the planet agrees that if properly held and if requiring a proper majority (at least a two-third majority), referendums are the perfect way to advance the interests of the public Really? Do you have a citation for that, in particular about the "almost every democratic country" part?

– Abigail
2 days ago





8




8





@Name Do you have a citation for the assertion that "most countries have referendums" or "more democratic countries have referendums"?

– owjburnham
2 days ago





@Name Do you have a citation for the assertion that "most countries have referendums" or "more democratic countries have referendums"?

– owjburnham
2 days ago




9




9





"The US has a (self-imposed) reputation of being a supremely democratic..." You're right that many or most Americans see it this way, but it would be interesting to trace back where it comes from. At it's founding, it was not designed to be "supremely" democratic, but to be somewhat democratic. There is a great deal in the Constitution tying the hands of the government and limiting the power of the general populace to gang up on any particular target citizens. It must have been a popular idea by the time the Senate was changed to direct election.

– jpmc26
2 days ago






"The US has a (self-imposed) reputation of being a supremely democratic..." You're right that many or most Americans see it this way, but it would be interesting to trace back where it comes from. At it's founding, it was not designed to be "supremely" democratic, but to be somewhat democratic. There is a great deal in the Constitution tying the hands of the government and limiting the power of the general populace to gang up on any particular target citizens. It must have been a popular idea by the time the Senate was changed to direct election.

– jpmc26
2 days ago





5




5





Maybe they've seen what happens when badly run and unclear referenda are held on divisive topics and turn into anger-venting mechanisms? Can't think of any recent examples of that though.

– thosphor
yesterday





Maybe they've seen what happens when badly run and unclear referenda are held on divisive topics and turn into anger-venting mechanisms? Can't think of any recent examples of that though.

– thosphor
yesterday




3




3





I'd challenge the implication that the US is supremely democratic. It's certainly something that people like to say because it sounds nice, but practically any ranking of world-wide democracy puts the US fairly far from the top.

– Birjolaxew
yesterday






I'd challenge the implication that the US is supremely democratic. It's certainly something that people like to say because it sounds nice, but practically any ranking of world-wide democracy puts the US fairly far from the top.

– Birjolaxew
yesterday











2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















40














The United States does have referendums at the state level and all 50 states have some power of referendum offered to the people (the most common being legislature prescribed referendums to the people of general laws, which all states have. Constitutional Amendments done in such fashion exist in every state but Delaware). Wikipedia lists the United States as an example of a (Semi-) Direct Democracy in its article on the matter.



The lack of Federal Referendum comes from a number of reasons, but the most commonly cited one was the Founding Father's distrust of direct democracy, seeing the form as a mob rule at best. They wanted a government where no one branch of government had enough power to run roughshod over another branch, and that no majority could overrun a minority (you can see this in the design of such elements as the Separate but Equal Branches, the use of the Electoral College, the bicameral nature of Congress) that there was a concerted effort to protect the minority (in the sense of party politics... they still had slavery as a legal thing for the better part of 90 years). They didn't fight against the tyranny of Britain to establish their own tyranny... and they didn't all agree with each other and wanted to make the fight easier and less bloody than the last one they had.



Another reason is that, rules as written, the Federal Government wasn't supposed to be dealing with the citizens all that often... that was mostly done at the state level or even smaller community levels. The Federal Government was more supposed to deal with two broad areas of topics: interactions between the states, and interactions with other nations. As a federation, the United States government is pretty much on par with a more strict EU. Each state, upon independence, was originally seen as their own separate nation that collectively agreed to surrender certain duties of a nation (namely the ability to declare war, the ability to create diplomatic policy, and the ability to regulate commerce leaving their territory), but retained every other ability of a government bound by constitutions. If you didn't need to do business outside of the state... and you didn't need to do business outside the United States... and you didn't need to fight a war with another country, you really didn't have much business with the Federal Government. At best, your interaction with federal agents was getting your mail from the friendly neighborhood postman. In the modern nation, there are a few more interactions, but again, not terribly many for the ordinary citizen. The phrase "All politics is local" is true, as at most, any given U.S. Citizen will have three national level ballot questions: who do you want to represent your congressional district in the House, who do you want to represent your state in the Senate, and who do you want your state to give its Electoral College votes to for President... all three are asking local questions that don't rise beyond the state level.



Finally, there's the issue of size. Switzerland, which has direct democracy, has a population of 8 million people compared to the United States' 320 million people, or roughly 40 times the population of Switzerland. It's a lot of ballots to manage to make a popular national decision and would have been such a daunting task that it would have been nearly impossible to do until relatively recently. And like you said, Brexit is a good argument on why certain questions shouldn't be punted to the people (the Swiss avoid this by imposing neutrality, thus it doesn't seek to have a lot of decision making that deals with international issues. The U.S. tried this too, but the first half of the 20th century had a nasty habit of bringing war to the States (not to mention there was a lot of popular support for joining the wars) and by the end of World War II, they got themselves locked in a game of chicken with the U.S.S.R. that required them to get involved with the world writ large... with varying degrees of success.






share|improve this answer




















  • 12





    +1, But I do disagree with this statement, "Brexit is a good argument on why certain questions shouldn't be punted to the people". There are several states in the U.S. that are larger than the UK and have tens of millions in population, and manage to have referendums all the time. It's not that logistically difficult. If you mean that you just didn't like the result, it could just as easily be argued that maybe it was a good idea that there was a Brexit referendum. To find out what people are thinking Now, before UKIP gets voted into a majority of Parliament. I prefer no-deal Brexit to that.

    – ouflak
    2 days ago






  • 10





    @ouflak: My statement is more that the foreign alliances/entanglements of a country should not be left to the masses to decide, more than anything. I'm not a citizen of the UK, so I mostly criticize Brexit because my country did Brexit better... but it's more for humor than anything. If I'm being fully serious about the matter, I don't have a horse in the race and don't really care how they resolve it.

    – hszmv
    2 days ago






  • 2





    In 1789 when the U.S. Constitution was adopted and in 1791 when the Bill of Rights was adopted, democratic government was in its infancy and national initiatives and referendums were basically unknown and distrusted. It is hard to amend the U.S. Constitution and no one ever got around to adding such provisions and came to see the difficulty of amendment as a feature rather than a bug since it was a bare bones document uncluttered with the junk found in constitutions that have this feature. Also, the U.S. also lacked the administrative capacity to conduct a direct nationwide election at first.

    – ohwilleke
    2 days ago







  • 1





    You might add to your list the fact that the Senate was not originally elected directly, but chosen by the state legislatures.

    – jpmc26
    2 days ago






  • 1





    I disagree that ‘a lot of ballots’ present ‘a daunting task’. Germany, for example, has a voting-eligible population, votes almost entirely traditionally paper-based and yet the ballots to the national parliament are typically counted within a few hours after polling stations close. For a yes/no referendum, this process should be even faster because only three piles exist (yes/no/invalid or unmarked) so I expect a result to be published within one, at most two hours.

    – Jan
    yesterday


















1














Referendums for the large part are a rather recent development. While they do date back a few centuries, a quick skim across the Referendums by country article on Wikipedia indicates that



  • most nations mentioned had a single-digit or low double-digit number of referendums in their history


  • the vast majority of referendums mentioned concerned independence and adoption or amendment of the respective country’s constitution.


These two observations already strongly disagree with your hypothesis that




almost every democratic country on the planet agrees that if properly held and if requiring a proper majority (at least a two-third majority), referendums are the perfect way to advance the interests of the public.




In fact, the seemingly only country that seems to agree with this statement is Switzerland, where referendums are commonplace, called on all sorts of issues and wholly respected by parliament as far as I can tell from my non-Swiss perspective. This Swiss peculiarity is a result of Switzerland’s history and national identity. Because there is no common language or religion or ancient history, Swiss democracy and their nation hold the people together in my understanding.



Most countries do see the potential dangers of referendums quite clearly and thus explicitly limit the choices that can be made; e.g. it seems rather common glancing across the list above to exclude taxation and spending matters from public control. Further countries limit referendums to local or regional but not national issues (e.g. Germany).



If you look at it closely, the United States (seem to, again from a non-citizen point of view) do it similarly: state-wide referendums, especially on state constitutional issues, seem to be more commonplace. Thus, the United States are no outlier, as far as I can tell.






share|improve this answer























    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "475"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );






    Name is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39897%2fwhy-are-there-no-referendums-in-the-us%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    40














    The United States does have referendums at the state level and all 50 states have some power of referendum offered to the people (the most common being legislature prescribed referendums to the people of general laws, which all states have. Constitutional Amendments done in such fashion exist in every state but Delaware). Wikipedia lists the United States as an example of a (Semi-) Direct Democracy in its article on the matter.



    The lack of Federal Referendum comes from a number of reasons, but the most commonly cited one was the Founding Father's distrust of direct democracy, seeing the form as a mob rule at best. They wanted a government where no one branch of government had enough power to run roughshod over another branch, and that no majority could overrun a minority (you can see this in the design of such elements as the Separate but Equal Branches, the use of the Electoral College, the bicameral nature of Congress) that there was a concerted effort to protect the minority (in the sense of party politics... they still had slavery as a legal thing for the better part of 90 years). They didn't fight against the tyranny of Britain to establish their own tyranny... and they didn't all agree with each other and wanted to make the fight easier and less bloody than the last one they had.



    Another reason is that, rules as written, the Federal Government wasn't supposed to be dealing with the citizens all that often... that was mostly done at the state level or even smaller community levels. The Federal Government was more supposed to deal with two broad areas of topics: interactions between the states, and interactions with other nations. As a federation, the United States government is pretty much on par with a more strict EU. Each state, upon independence, was originally seen as their own separate nation that collectively agreed to surrender certain duties of a nation (namely the ability to declare war, the ability to create diplomatic policy, and the ability to regulate commerce leaving their territory), but retained every other ability of a government bound by constitutions. If you didn't need to do business outside of the state... and you didn't need to do business outside the United States... and you didn't need to fight a war with another country, you really didn't have much business with the Federal Government. At best, your interaction with federal agents was getting your mail from the friendly neighborhood postman. In the modern nation, there are a few more interactions, but again, not terribly many for the ordinary citizen. The phrase "All politics is local" is true, as at most, any given U.S. Citizen will have three national level ballot questions: who do you want to represent your congressional district in the House, who do you want to represent your state in the Senate, and who do you want your state to give its Electoral College votes to for President... all three are asking local questions that don't rise beyond the state level.



    Finally, there's the issue of size. Switzerland, which has direct democracy, has a population of 8 million people compared to the United States' 320 million people, or roughly 40 times the population of Switzerland. It's a lot of ballots to manage to make a popular national decision and would have been such a daunting task that it would have been nearly impossible to do until relatively recently. And like you said, Brexit is a good argument on why certain questions shouldn't be punted to the people (the Swiss avoid this by imposing neutrality, thus it doesn't seek to have a lot of decision making that deals with international issues. The U.S. tried this too, but the first half of the 20th century had a nasty habit of bringing war to the States (not to mention there was a lot of popular support for joining the wars) and by the end of World War II, they got themselves locked in a game of chicken with the U.S.S.R. that required them to get involved with the world writ large... with varying degrees of success.






    share|improve this answer




















    • 12





      +1, But I do disagree with this statement, "Brexit is a good argument on why certain questions shouldn't be punted to the people". There are several states in the U.S. that are larger than the UK and have tens of millions in population, and manage to have referendums all the time. It's not that logistically difficult. If you mean that you just didn't like the result, it could just as easily be argued that maybe it was a good idea that there was a Brexit referendum. To find out what people are thinking Now, before UKIP gets voted into a majority of Parliament. I prefer no-deal Brexit to that.

      – ouflak
      2 days ago






    • 10





      @ouflak: My statement is more that the foreign alliances/entanglements of a country should not be left to the masses to decide, more than anything. I'm not a citizen of the UK, so I mostly criticize Brexit because my country did Brexit better... but it's more for humor than anything. If I'm being fully serious about the matter, I don't have a horse in the race and don't really care how they resolve it.

      – hszmv
      2 days ago






    • 2





      In 1789 when the U.S. Constitution was adopted and in 1791 when the Bill of Rights was adopted, democratic government was in its infancy and national initiatives and referendums were basically unknown and distrusted. It is hard to amend the U.S. Constitution and no one ever got around to adding such provisions and came to see the difficulty of amendment as a feature rather than a bug since it was a bare bones document uncluttered with the junk found in constitutions that have this feature. Also, the U.S. also lacked the administrative capacity to conduct a direct nationwide election at first.

      – ohwilleke
      2 days ago







    • 1





      You might add to your list the fact that the Senate was not originally elected directly, but chosen by the state legislatures.

      – jpmc26
      2 days ago






    • 1





      I disagree that ‘a lot of ballots’ present ‘a daunting task’. Germany, for example, has a voting-eligible population, votes almost entirely traditionally paper-based and yet the ballots to the national parliament are typically counted within a few hours after polling stations close. For a yes/no referendum, this process should be even faster because only three piles exist (yes/no/invalid or unmarked) so I expect a result to be published within one, at most two hours.

      – Jan
      yesterday















    40














    The United States does have referendums at the state level and all 50 states have some power of referendum offered to the people (the most common being legislature prescribed referendums to the people of general laws, which all states have. Constitutional Amendments done in such fashion exist in every state but Delaware). Wikipedia lists the United States as an example of a (Semi-) Direct Democracy in its article on the matter.



    The lack of Federal Referendum comes from a number of reasons, but the most commonly cited one was the Founding Father's distrust of direct democracy, seeing the form as a mob rule at best. They wanted a government where no one branch of government had enough power to run roughshod over another branch, and that no majority could overrun a minority (you can see this in the design of such elements as the Separate but Equal Branches, the use of the Electoral College, the bicameral nature of Congress) that there was a concerted effort to protect the minority (in the sense of party politics... they still had slavery as a legal thing for the better part of 90 years). They didn't fight against the tyranny of Britain to establish their own tyranny... and they didn't all agree with each other and wanted to make the fight easier and less bloody than the last one they had.



    Another reason is that, rules as written, the Federal Government wasn't supposed to be dealing with the citizens all that often... that was mostly done at the state level or even smaller community levels. The Federal Government was more supposed to deal with two broad areas of topics: interactions between the states, and interactions with other nations. As a federation, the United States government is pretty much on par with a more strict EU. Each state, upon independence, was originally seen as their own separate nation that collectively agreed to surrender certain duties of a nation (namely the ability to declare war, the ability to create diplomatic policy, and the ability to regulate commerce leaving their territory), but retained every other ability of a government bound by constitutions. If you didn't need to do business outside of the state... and you didn't need to do business outside the United States... and you didn't need to fight a war with another country, you really didn't have much business with the Federal Government. At best, your interaction with federal agents was getting your mail from the friendly neighborhood postman. In the modern nation, there are a few more interactions, but again, not terribly many for the ordinary citizen. The phrase "All politics is local" is true, as at most, any given U.S. Citizen will have three national level ballot questions: who do you want to represent your congressional district in the House, who do you want to represent your state in the Senate, and who do you want your state to give its Electoral College votes to for President... all three are asking local questions that don't rise beyond the state level.



    Finally, there's the issue of size. Switzerland, which has direct democracy, has a population of 8 million people compared to the United States' 320 million people, or roughly 40 times the population of Switzerland. It's a lot of ballots to manage to make a popular national decision and would have been such a daunting task that it would have been nearly impossible to do until relatively recently. And like you said, Brexit is a good argument on why certain questions shouldn't be punted to the people (the Swiss avoid this by imposing neutrality, thus it doesn't seek to have a lot of decision making that deals with international issues. The U.S. tried this too, but the first half of the 20th century had a nasty habit of bringing war to the States (not to mention there was a lot of popular support for joining the wars) and by the end of World War II, they got themselves locked in a game of chicken with the U.S.S.R. that required them to get involved with the world writ large... with varying degrees of success.






    share|improve this answer




















    • 12





      +1, But I do disagree with this statement, "Brexit is a good argument on why certain questions shouldn't be punted to the people". There are several states in the U.S. that are larger than the UK and have tens of millions in population, and manage to have referendums all the time. It's not that logistically difficult. If you mean that you just didn't like the result, it could just as easily be argued that maybe it was a good idea that there was a Brexit referendum. To find out what people are thinking Now, before UKIP gets voted into a majority of Parliament. I prefer no-deal Brexit to that.

      – ouflak
      2 days ago






    • 10





      @ouflak: My statement is more that the foreign alliances/entanglements of a country should not be left to the masses to decide, more than anything. I'm not a citizen of the UK, so I mostly criticize Brexit because my country did Brexit better... but it's more for humor than anything. If I'm being fully serious about the matter, I don't have a horse in the race and don't really care how they resolve it.

      – hszmv
      2 days ago






    • 2





      In 1789 when the U.S. Constitution was adopted and in 1791 when the Bill of Rights was adopted, democratic government was in its infancy and national initiatives and referendums were basically unknown and distrusted. It is hard to amend the U.S. Constitution and no one ever got around to adding such provisions and came to see the difficulty of amendment as a feature rather than a bug since it was a bare bones document uncluttered with the junk found in constitutions that have this feature. Also, the U.S. also lacked the administrative capacity to conduct a direct nationwide election at first.

      – ohwilleke
      2 days ago







    • 1





      You might add to your list the fact that the Senate was not originally elected directly, but chosen by the state legislatures.

      – jpmc26
      2 days ago






    • 1





      I disagree that ‘a lot of ballots’ present ‘a daunting task’. Germany, for example, has a voting-eligible population, votes almost entirely traditionally paper-based and yet the ballots to the national parliament are typically counted within a few hours after polling stations close. For a yes/no referendum, this process should be even faster because only three piles exist (yes/no/invalid or unmarked) so I expect a result to be published within one, at most two hours.

      – Jan
      yesterday













    40












    40








    40







    The United States does have referendums at the state level and all 50 states have some power of referendum offered to the people (the most common being legislature prescribed referendums to the people of general laws, which all states have. Constitutional Amendments done in such fashion exist in every state but Delaware). Wikipedia lists the United States as an example of a (Semi-) Direct Democracy in its article on the matter.



    The lack of Federal Referendum comes from a number of reasons, but the most commonly cited one was the Founding Father's distrust of direct democracy, seeing the form as a mob rule at best. They wanted a government where no one branch of government had enough power to run roughshod over another branch, and that no majority could overrun a minority (you can see this in the design of such elements as the Separate but Equal Branches, the use of the Electoral College, the bicameral nature of Congress) that there was a concerted effort to protect the minority (in the sense of party politics... they still had slavery as a legal thing for the better part of 90 years). They didn't fight against the tyranny of Britain to establish their own tyranny... and they didn't all agree with each other and wanted to make the fight easier and less bloody than the last one they had.



    Another reason is that, rules as written, the Federal Government wasn't supposed to be dealing with the citizens all that often... that was mostly done at the state level or even smaller community levels. The Federal Government was more supposed to deal with two broad areas of topics: interactions between the states, and interactions with other nations. As a federation, the United States government is pretty much on par with a more strict EU. Each state, upon independence, was originally seen as their own separate nation that collectively agreed to surrender certain duties of a nation (namely the ability to declare war, the ability to create diplomatic policy, and the ability to regulate commerce leaving their territory), but retained every other ability of a government bound by constitutions. If you didn't need to do business outside of the state... and you didn't need to do business outside the United States... and you didn't need to fight a war with another country, you really didn't have much business with the Federal Government. At best, your interaction with federal agents was getting your mail from the friendly neighborhood postman. In the modern nation, there are a few more interactions, but again, not terribly many for the ordinary citizen. The phrase "All politics is local" is true, as at most, any given U.S. Citizen will have three national level ballot questions: who do you want to represent your congressional district in the House, who do you want to represent your state in the Senate, and who do you want your state to give its Electoral College votes to for President... all three are asking local questions that don't rise beyond the state level.



    Finally, there's the issue of size. Switzerland, which has direct democracy, has a population of 8 million people compared to the United States' 320 million people, or roughly 40 times the population of Switzerland. It's a lot of ballots to manage to make a popular national decision and would have been such a daunting task that it would have been nearly impossible to do until relatively recently. And like you said, Brexit is a good argument on why certain questions shouldn't be punted to the people (the Swiss avoid this by imposing neutrality, thus it doesn't seek to have a lot of decision making that deals with international issues. The U.S. tried this too, but the first half of the 20th century had a nasty habit of bringing war to the States (not to mention there was a lot of popular support for joining the wars) and by the end of World War II, they got themselves locked in a game of chicken with the U.S.S.R. that required them to get involved with the world writ large... with varying degrees of success.






    share|improve this answer















    The United States does have referendums at the state level and all 50 states have some power of referendum offered to the people (the most common being legislature prescribed referendums to the people of general laws, which all states have. Constitutional Amendments done in such fashion exist in every state but Delaware). Wikipedia lists the United States as an example of a (Semi-) Direct Democracy in its article on the matter.



    The lack of Federal Referendum comes from a number of reasons, but the most commonly cited one was the Founding Father's distrust of direct democracy, seeing the form as a mob rule at best. They wanted a government where no one branch of government had enough power to run roughshod over another branch, and that no majority could overrun a minority (you can see this in the design of such elements as the Separate but Equal Branches, the use of the Electoral College, the bicameral nature of Congress) that there was a concerted effort to protect the minority (in the sense of party politics... they still had slavery as a legal thing for the better part of 90 years). They didn't fight against the tyranny of Britain to establish their own tyranny... and they didn't all agree with each other and wanted to make the fight easier and less bloody than the last one they had.



    Another reason is that, rules as written, the Federal Government wasn't supposed to be dealing with the citizens all that often... that was mostly done at the state level or even smaller community levels. The Federal Government was more supposed to deal with two broad areas of topics: interactions between the states, and interactions with other nations. As a federation, the United States government is pretty much on par with a more strict EU. Each state, upon independence, was originally seen as their own separate nation that collectively agreed to surrender certain duties of a nation (namely the ability to declare war, the ability to create diplomatic policy, and the ability to regulate commerce leaving their territory), but retained every other ability of a government bound by constitutions. If you didn't need to do business outside of the state... and you didn't need to do business outside the United States... and you didn't need to fight a war with another country, you really didn't have much business with the Federal Government. At best, your interaction with federal agents was getting your mail from the friendly neighborhood postman. In the modern nation, there are a few more interactions, but again, not terribly many for the ordinary citizen. The phrase "All politics is local" is true, as at most, any given U.S. Citizen will have three national level ballot questions: who do you want to represent your congressional district in the House, who do you want to represent your state in the Senate, and who do you want your state to give its Electoral College votes to for President... all three are asking local questions that don't rise beyond the state level.



    Finally, there's the issue of size. Switzerland, which has direct democracy, has a population of 8 million people compared to the United States' 320 million people, or roughly 40 times the population of Switzerland. It's a lot of ballots to manage to make a popular national decision and would have been such a daunting task that it would have been nearly impossible to do until relatively recently. And like you said, Brexit is a good argument on why certain questions shouldn't be punted to the people (the Swiss avoid this by imposing neutrality, thus it doesn't seek to have a lot of decision making that deals with international issues. The U.S. tried this too, but the first half of the 20th century had a nasty habit of bringing war to the States (not to mention there was a lot of popular support for joining the wars) and by the end of World War II, they got themselves locked in a game of chicken with the U.S.S.R. that required them to get involved with the world writ large... with varying degrees of success.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited yesterday









    Glorfindel

    1,2811723




    1,2811723










    answered 2 days ago









    hszmvhszmv

    6,0581926




    6,0581926







    • 12





      +1, But I do disagree with this statement, "Brexit is a good argument on why certain questions shouldn't be punted to the people". There are several states in the U.S. that are larger than the UK and have tens of millions in population, and manage to have referendums all the time. It's not that logistically difficult. If you mean that you just didn't like the result, it could just as easily be argued that maybe it was a good idea that there was a Brexit referendum. To find out what people are thinking Now, before UKIP gets voted into a majority of Parliament. I prefer no-deal Brexit to that.

      – ouflak
      2 days ago






    • 10





      @ouflak: My statement is more that the foreign alliances/entanglements of a country should not be left to the masses to decide, more than anything. I'm not a citizen of the UK, so I mostly criticize Brexit because my country did Brexit better... but it's more for humor than anything. If I'm being fully serious about the matter, I don't have a horse in the race and don't really care how they resolve it.

      – hszmv
      2 days ago






    • 2





      In 1789 when the U.S. Constitution was adopted and in 1791 when the Bill of Rights was adopted, democratic government was in its infancy and national initiatives and referendums were basically unknown and distrusted. It is hard to amend the U.S. Constitution and no one ever got around to adding such provisions and came to see the difficulty of amendment as a feature rather than a bug since it was a bare bones document uncluttered with the junk found in constitutions that have this feature. Also, the U.S. also lacked the administrative capacity to conduct a direct nationwide election at first.

      – ohwilleke
      2 days ago







    • 1





      You might add to your list the fact that the Senate was not originally elected directly, but chosen by the state legislatures.

      – jpmc26
      2 days ago






    • 1





      I disagree that ‘a lot of ballots’ present ‘a daunting task’. Germany, for example, has a voting-eligible population, votes almost entirely traditionally paper-based and yet the ballots to the national parliament are typically counted within a few hours after polling stations close. For a yes/no referendum, this process should be even faster because only three piles exist (yes/no/invalid or unmarked) so I expect a result to be published within one, at most two hours.

      – Jan
      yesterday












    • 12





      +1, But I do disagree with this statement, "Brexit is a good argument on why certain questions shouldn't be punted to the people". There are several states in the U.S. that are larger than the UK and have tens of millions in population, and manage to have referendums all the time. It's not that logistically difficult. If you mean that you just didn't like the result, it could just as easily be argued that maybe it was a good idea that there was a Brexit referendum. To find out what people are thinking Now, before UKIP gets voted into a majority of Parliament. I prefer no-deal Brexit to that.

      – ouflak
      2 days ago






    • 10





      @ouflak: My statement is more that the foreign alliances/entanglements of a country should not be left to the masses to decide, more than anything. I'm not a citizen of the UK, so I mostly criticize Brexit because my country did Brexit better... but it's more for humor than anything. If I'm being fully serious about the matter, I don't have a horse in the race and don't really care how they resolve it.

      – hszmv
      2 days ago






    • 2





      In 1789 when the U.S. Constitution was adopted and in 1791 when the Bill of Rights was adopted, democratic government was in its infancy and national initiatives and referendums were basically unknown and distrusted. It is hard to amend the U.S. Constitution and no one ever got around to adding such provisions and came to see the difficulty of amendment as a feature rather than a bug since it was a bare bones document uncluttered with the junk found in constitutions that have this feature. Also, the U.S. also lacked the administrative capacity to conduct a direct nationwide election at first.

      – ohwilleke
      2 days ago







    • 1





      You might add to your list the fact that the Senate was not originally elected directly, but chosen by the state legislatures.

      – jpmc26
      2 days ago






    • 1





      I disagree that ‘a lot of ballots’ present ‘a daunting task’. Germany, for example, has a voting-eligible population, votes almost entirely traditionally paper-based and yet the ballots to the national parliament are typically counted within a few hours after polling stations close. For a yes/no referendum, this process should be even faster because only three piles exist (yes/no/invalid or unmarked) so I expect a result to be published within one, at most two hours.

      – Jan
      yesterday







    12




    12





    +1, But I do disagree with this statement, "Brexit is a good argument on why certain questions shouldn't be punted to the people". There are several states in the U.S. that are larger than the UK and have tens of millions in population, and manage to have referendums all the time. It's not that logistically difficult. If you mean that you just didn't like the result, it could just as easily be argued that maybe it was a good idea that there was a Brexit referendum. To find out what people are thinking Now, before UKIP gets voted into a majority of Parliament. I prefer no-deal Brexit to that.

    – ouflak
    2 days ago





    +1, But I do disagree with this statement, "Brexit is a good argument on why certain questions shouldn't be punted to the people". There are several states in the U.S. that are larger than the UK and have tens of millions in population, and manage to have referendums all the time. It's not that logistically difficult. If you mean that you just didn't like the result, it could just as easily be argued that maybe it was a good idea that there was a Brexit referendum. To find out what people are thinking Now, before UKIP gets voted into a majority of Parliament. I prefer no-deal Brexit to that.

    – ouflak
    2 days ago




    10




    10





    @ouflak: My statement is more that the foreign alliances/entanglements of a country should not be left to the masses to decide, more than anything. I'm not a citizen of the UK, so I mostly criticize Brexit because my country did Brexit better... but it's more for humor than anything. If I'm being fully serious about the matter, I don't have a horse in the race and don't really care how they resolve it.

    – hszmv
    2 days ago





    @ouflak: My statement is more that the foreign alliances/entanglements of a country should not be left to the masses to decide, more than anything. I'm not a citizen of the UK, so I mostly criticize Brexit because my country did Brexit better... but it's more for humor than anything. If I'm being fully serious about the matter, I don't have a horse in the race and don't really care how they resolve it.

    – hszmv
    2 days ago




    2




    2





    In 1789 when the U.S. Constitution was adopted and in 1791 when the Bill of Rights was adopted, democratic government was in its infancy and national initiatives and referendums were basically unknown and distrusted. It is hard to amend the U.S. Constitution and no one ever got around to adding such provisions and came to see the difficulty of amendment as a feature rather than a bug since it was a bare bones document uncluttered with the junk found in constitutions that have this feature. Also, the U.S. also lacked the administrative capacity to conduct a direct nationwide election at first.

    – ohwilleke
    2 days ago






    In 1789 when the U.S. Constitution was adopted and in 1791 when the Bill of Rights was adopted, democratic government was in its infancy and national initiatives and referendums were basically unknown and distrusted. It is hard to amend the U.S. Constitution and no one ever got around to adding such provisions and came to see the difficulty of amendment as a feature rather than a bug since it was a bare bones document uncluttered with the junk found in constitutions that have this feature. Also, the U.S. also lacked the administrative capacity to conduct a direct nationwide election at first.

    – ohwilleke
    2 days ago





    1




    1





    You might add to your list the fact that the Senate was not originally elected directly, but chosen by the state legislatures.

    – jpmc26
    2 days ago





    You might add to your list the fact that the Senate was not originally elected directly, but chosen by the state legislatures.

    – jpmc26
    2 days ago




    1




    1





    I disagree that ‘a lot of ballots’ present ‘a daunting task’. Germany, for example, has a voting-eligible population, votes almost entirely traditionally paper-based and yet the ballots to the national parliament are typically counted within a few hours after polling stations close. For a yes/no referendum, this process should be even faster because only three piles exist (yes/no/invalid or unmarked) so I expect a result to be published within one, at most two hours.

    – Jan
    yesterday





    I disagree that ‘a lot of ballots’ present ‘a daunting task’. Germany, for example, has a voting-eligible population, votes almost entirely traditionally paper-based and yet the ballots to the national parliament are typically counted within a few hours after polling stations close. For a yes/no referendum, this process should be even faster because only three piles exist (yes/no/invalid or unmarked) so I expect a result to be published within one, at most two hours.

    – Jan
    yesterday











    1














    Referendums for the large part are a rather recent development. While they do date back a few centuries, a quick skim across the Referendums by country article on Wikipedia indicates that



    • most nations mentioned had a single-digit or low double-digit number of referendums in their history


    • the vast majority of referendums mentioned concerned independence and adoption or amendment of the respective country’s constitution.


    These two observations already strongly disagree with your hypothesis that




    almost every democratic country on the planet agrees that if properly held and if requiring a proper majority (at least a two-third majority), referendums are the perfect way to advance the interests of the public.




    In fact, the seemingly only country that seems to agree with this statement is Switzerland, where referendums are commonplace, called on all sorts of issues and wholly respected by parliament as far as I can tell from my non-Swiss perspective. This Swiss peculiarity is a result of Switzerland’s history and national identity. Because there is no common language or religion or ancient history, Swiss democracy and their nation hold the people together in my understanding.



    Most countries do see the potential dangers of referendums quite clearly and thus explicitly limit the choices that can be made; e.g. it seems rather common glancing across the list above to exclude taxation and spending matters from public control. Further countries limit referendums to local or regional but not national issues (e.g. Germany).



    If you look at it closely, the United States (seem to, again from a non-citizen point of view) do it similarly: state-wide referendums, especially on state constitutional issues, seem to be more commonplace. Thus, the United States are no outlier, as far as I can tell.






    share|improve this answer



























      1














      Referendums for the large part are a rather recent development. While they do date back a few centuries, a quick skim across the Referendums by country article on Wikipedia indicates that



      • most nations mentioned had a single-digit or low double-digit number of referendums in their history


      • the vast majority of referendums mentioned concerned independence and adoption or amendment of the respective country’s constitution.


      These two observations already strongly disagree with your hypothesis that




      almost every democratic country on the planet agrees that if properly held and if requiring a proper majority (at least a two-third majority), referendums are the perfect way to advance the interests of the public.




      In fact, the seemingly only country that seems to agree with this statement is Switzerland, where referendums are commonplace, called on all sorts of issues and wholly respected by parliament as far as I can tell from my non-Swiss perspective. This Swiss peculiarity is a result of Switzerland’s history and national identity. Because there is no common language or religion or ancient history, Swiss democracy and their nation hold the people together in my understanding.



      Most countries do see the potential dangers of referendums quite clearly and thus explicitly limit the choices that can be made; e.g. it seems rather common glancing across the list above to exclude taxation and spending matters from public control. Further countries limit referendums to local or regional but not national issues (e.g. Germany).



      If you look at it closely, the United States (seem to, again from a non-citizen point of view) do it similarly: state-wide referendums, especially on state constitutional issues, seem to be more commonplace. Thus, the United States are no outlier, as far as I can tell.






      share|improve this answer

























        1












        1








        1







        Referendums for the large part are a rather recent development. While they do date back a few centuries, a quick skim across the Referendums by country article on Wikipedia indicates that



        • most nations mentioned had a single-digit or low double-digit number of referendums in their history


        • the vast majority of referendums mentioned concerned independence and adoption or amendment of the respective country’s constitution.


        These two observations already strongly disagree with your hypothesis that




        almost every democratic country on the planet agrees that if properly held and if requiring a proper majority (at least a two-third majority), referendums are the perfect way to advance the interests of the public.




        In fact, the seemingly only country that seems to agree with this statement is Switzerland, where referendums are commonplace, called on all sorts of issues and wholly respected by parliament as far as I can tell from my non-Swiss perspective. This Swiss peculiarity is a result of Switzerland’s history and national identity. Because there is no common language or religion or ancient history, Swiss democracy and their nation hold the people together in my understanding.



        Most countries do see the potential dangers of referendums quite clearly and thus explicitly limit the choices that can be made; e.g. it seems rather common glancing across the list above to exclude taxation and spending matters from public control. Further countries limit referendums to local or regional but not national issues (e.g. Germany).



        If you look at it closely, the United States (seem to, again from a non-citizen point of view) do it similarly: state-wide referendums, especially on state constitutional issues, seem to be more commonplace. Thus, the United States are no outlier, as far as I can tell.






        share|improve this answer













        Referendums for the large part are a rather recent development. While they do date back a few centuries, a quick skim across the Referendums by country article on Wikipedia indicates that



        • most nations mentioned had a single-digit or low double-digit number of referendums in their history


        • the vast majority of referendums mentioned concerned independence and adoption or amendment of the respective country’s constitution.


        These two observations already strongly disagree with your hypothesis that




        almost every democratic country on the planet agrees that if properly held and if requiring a proper majority (at least a two-third majority), referendums are the perfect way to advance the interests of the public.




        In fact, the seemingly only country that seems to agree with this statement is Switzerland, where referendums are commonplace, called on all sorts of issues and wholly respected by parliament as far as I can tell from my non-Swiss perspective. This Swiss peculiarity is a result of Switzerland’s history and national identity. Because there is no common language or religion or ancient history, Swiss democracy and their nation hold the people together in my understanding.



        Most countries do see the potential dangers of referendums quite clearly and thus explicitly limit the choices that can be made; e.g. it seems rather common glancing across the list above to exclude taxation and spending matters from public control. Further countries limit referendums to local or regional but not national issues (e.g. Germany).



        If you look at it closely, the United States (seem to, again from a non-citizen point of view) do it similarly: state-wide referendums, especially on state constitutional issues, seem to be more commonplace. Thus, the United States are no outlier, as far as I can tell.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 10 hours ago









        JanJan

        2566




        2566




















            Name is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            Name is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            Name is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











            Name is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














            Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39897%2fwhy-are-there-no-referendums-in-the-us%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Sum ergo cogito? 1 nng

            三茅街道4182Guuntc Dn precexpngmageondP