Why are there no referendums in the US?How 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?

Is GOCE a satellite or aircraft?

Can a creature tell when it has been affected by a Divination wizard's Portent?

Is creating your own "experiment" considered cheating during a physics exam?

Is it possible to measure lightning discharges as Nikola Tesla?

Does jamais mean always or never in this context?

Was there a Viking Exchange as well as a Columbian one?

What is the difference between `a[bc]d` (brackets) and `ab,cd` (braces)?

Was it really necessary for the Lunar Module to have 2 stages?

Will tsunami waves travel forever if there was no land?

Feels like I am getting dragged in office politics

Are Boeing 737-800’s grounded?

How to replace the "space symbol" (squat-u) in listings?

Can solid acids and bases have pH values? If not, how are they classified as acids or bases?

Pulling the rope with one hand is as heavy as with two hands?

Upright [...] in italics quotation

Packing rectangles: Does rotation ever help?

Why was Germany not as successful as other Europeans in establishing overseas colonies?

Counterexample: a pair of linearly ordered sets that are isomorphic to subsets of the other, but not isomorphic between them

Why are the 2nd/3rd singular forms of present of « potere » irregular?

How to back up a running remote server?

How does a Swashbuckler rogue "fight with two weapons while safely darting away"?

Why didn't this hurt this character as badly?

Subtleties of choosing the sequence of tenses in Russian

Has any spacecraft ever had the ability to directly communicate with civilian air traffic control?



Why are there no referendums in the US?


How 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



















  • 43





    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
    Mar 27 at 15:42







  • 8





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

    – owjburnham
    Mar 27 at 15:53






  • 10





    "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
    Mar 27 at 23:31







  • 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
    Mar 28 at 8:34






  • 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
    Mar 28 at 13:29
















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



















  • 43





    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
    Mar 27 at 15:42







  • 8





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

    – owjburnham
    Mar 27 at 15:53






  • 10





    "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
    Mar 27 at 23:31







  • 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
    Mar 28 at 8:34






  • 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
    Mar 28 at 13:29














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
















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















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Mar 27 at 18:05









Martin Schröder

1,1641933




1,1641933










asked Mar 27 at 15:35









NameName

9813




9813







  • 43





    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
    Mar 27 at 15:42







  • 8





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

    – owjburnham
    Mar 27 at 15:53






  • 10





    "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
    Mar 27 at 23:31







  • 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
    Mar 28 at 8:34






  • 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
    Mar 28 at 13:29













  • 43





    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
    Mar 27 at 15:42







  • 8





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

    – owjburnham
    Mar 27 at 15:53






  • 10





    "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
    Mar 27 at 23:31







  • 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
    Mar 28 at 8:34






  • 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
    Mar 28 at 13:29








43




43





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
Mar 27 at 15:42






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
Mar 27 at 15:42





8




8





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

– owjburnham
Mar 27 at 15:53





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

– owjburnham
Mar 27 at 15:53




10




10





"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
Mar 27 at 23:31






"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
Mar 27 at 23:31





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
Mar 28 at 8:34





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
Mar 28 at 8:34




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
Mar 28 at 13:29






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
Mar 28 at 13:29











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
































    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
      );



      );













      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





























        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



























          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 Mar 28 at 8:05









          Glorfindel

          1,3061723




          1,3061723










          answered Mar 27 at 16:35









          hszmvhszmv

          6,3611927




          6,3611927





















              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 Mar 29 at 15:03









                  JanJan

                  2866




                  2866



























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded
















































                      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

                      Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum

                      He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

                      Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029