Government Technology

At Issue: Shut Up and Let Me Govern!

Mayor Michael Bloomberg by Be the Change, Inc./Flickr CC

Government by Referenda?

March 26, 2012 By

One could argue the United States is a republic instead of a democracy because of bad roads. In the 18th century, not everybody could slog through the mud for days or weeks to get to Washington, D.C., and have their say on every issue, as citizens do in New England town meetings. So our government was set up as a republic in which representatives are elected to do our “saying” for us. The public does not even elect the president — the Electoral College does — as we were reminded in the 2000 contest, where George W. Bush won the electors but Al Gore won the popular vote.

In a cynical age, in a highly polarized political climate, under the duress of a recession, trust in our elected representatives has fallen to historic lows. Recently, according to The New York Times, trust in the federal government dropped to single digits. Public trust in state and local government is a bit better, according to a Gallup poll, but in such a climate, reports of government secrecy and abuse of power strike an ugly chord that can resonate broadly.

And in an age of instant communication, the public is weighing in on political matters in a more direct way. According to another New York Times article, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said that the daily social network barrage is making it harder for elected officials to stand their ground and engage in long-term planning. “We are basically having a referendum on every single thing that we do every day,” Bloomberg said.

So as we gain technology, we also gain the ability to micromanage — or at least to attempt to micromanage — our elected representatives. But is this a good idea?

The public — as anyone knows who follows reader comments in major newspapers and blogs — may be susceptible to short-term aberrations: torches, pitchforks, calls for impeachment, that sort of thing. And the public that is most vocal — the ones commenting on a blog or government announcement with vicious verbal attacks — can be just a little impatient about things.

A guy waving a month-old newspaper shouting into the trees outside a log cabin on the frontier is far removed from a guy in front of a computer screen ranting about a tweet he received four seconds ago from a talk-show host or one of his elected representatives. Online petitions, email blasts, social media swarms – the snowball effect can build to a crescendo in an instant. Few representatives concerned about their popularity can afford to ignore them.

But the hot issues of the second may seem trivial in the context of history, and the slow building of a major development may be overlooked in a society tuned to rapid reaction. So can elected officials really put things in context better than the public as a whole?

“Some writers have so confounded society with government,” said Thomas Paine in Common Sense, “as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices.”

And Thomas Jefferson, who perhaps more than any other Founding Father trusted the public to govern, still had some stipulations: “Whenever people are well-informed,” said Jefferson, “they can be trusted with their own government.” And he put some stock in reason: “Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable.”

While it could be argued that our technology has advanced to the point where cities, states and even perhaps the nation could engage in referenda on important issues — as a form of direct democracy — has human nature advanced to the point where our "vices" no longer need restraining? Or do we still need “cooler heads” to make decisions in our stead?

At Issue: Has a representative form of government outlived its usefulness in the Information Age? Should we use modern technology and referenda to decide the issues of the day?

| More


Hologram    |    Commented March 27, 2012

“We are basically having a referendum on every single thing that we do every day,” Bloomberg said. Oh, poor Bloomberg. He might actually get held accountable for the way he does things on a daily basis instead of just at election time. Of course Bloomberg and other government officials don't want to have people know what is going on and prefer to have public commenting shut down or discounted. It would be one thing if he was doing what was right. If he is, then stand the heat. If he is not, then being taken to task is appropriate and necessary. This is still America, not yet Amerika, although we are fast heading that way. Social media and the electronic digital age make it hard for politicians to hide who they really are and their true actions.

Cooler Head    |    Commented March 27, 2012

"It would be one thing if he was doing what was right." Who decides what is right? Right is in the eye of the beholder. Remember: "Too many cooks spoil the broth" and "a camel is a horse that was designed by committee". Fewer people earnestly discussing the way to go and being willing to reach compromise to get there is still the way to go. Unfortunately, far too few people are willing to compromise or even listen to an opposing opinion anymore as a direct result of social media where they solely deal with others of the same opinion as theirs.

Jeff Brown    |    Commented March 27, 2012

I have faith that public officials will not only learn to manage it, they will manipulate it for their own gain just as they have with everything else. Perhaps Mr. Bloomberg is doing exactly that as he reminds his followers that there is more to running a country than the instant gratification of social media politics.

Rev Charles Thompson Shotwell    |    Commented March 27, 2012

Well in the first place, anything coming from the mouth of The New York Mayor should not be believed by anyone. He if he could would run the USA as a Capitalist. I believe that Hitler and Bloomberg could have been best of friends or lovers. I’m sorry if I may say things as I see, feel, and believe them to be but someone put up this window for Comments. So If you want less crime in New York then get rid of Hitler! Oh and as far as the electoral votes go, It was only supposed to last for one year but the underdogs found that if they just kept it going they could let people like Hitler and Bloomberg stay in office. We The People need to put things back the way they are supposed to be and everything will work a lot better and EVERYONE's vote will count!

Add Your Comment

You are solely responsible for the content of your comments. We reserve the right to remove comments that are considered profane, vulgar, obscene, factually inaccurate, off-topic, or considered a personal attack.

In Our Library

White Papers | Exclusives Reports | Webinar Archives | Best Practices and Case Studies
McAfee Enterprise Security Manager and Threat Intelligence Exchange
As a part of the Intel® Security product offering, McAfee® Enterprise Security Manager and McAfee Threat Intelligence Exchange work together to provide organizations with exactly what they need to fight advanced threats. You get the situational awareness, actionable intelligence, and instantaneous speed to immediately identify, respond to, and proactively neutralize threats in just milliseconds.
Better security. Better government.
Powering security at all levels of government with simpler, more connected IT.
Cybersecurity in an "All-IP World" Are You Prepared?
In a recent survey conducted by Public CIO, over 125 respondents shared how they protect their environments from cyber threats and the challenges they see in an all-IP world. Read how your cybersecurity strategies and attitudes compare with your peers.
View All

Featured Papers