Initiatives v Oligarchy

Our Founders' Warning: “Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.” (Thomas Jefferson)

Why Not Let the IQA Pass Legislation Directly?

Letting the Random Sample Members of IQA Pass Legislation Directly:

It can be argued (Callenbach and Phillips) that the Amendment could allow the IQA pass legislation directly, without going to vote by nationwide Electorate. Some advantages and major reservations are:

  1. Well informed Assembly Members would make such laws rather than a less informed Electorate.
  2. Similar methods could be used for State and local government.
  3. The problem of overburdening the Electorate is avoided, so the Assembly could pass more laws than in the planned Solution.

There are several reservations to taking such a large step:

  1. It is less consistent with the constitutional framework, where the ultimate authority and source of power to make legitimate decisions is the People, not a random sample of the People—which is not mentioned in the Constitution.
  2. A random sample is small enough that it is possible a few charismatic activists might be able to control the IQA for long enough to approve an unwise Initiative. The People can correct such error by voting against the Initiative. (Of course, the People may occasionally be similarly influenced. But, if the People make the mistake, it is their right.)
  3. The Constitution’s Guaranty Clause states that: “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government”. While adoption of an Initiative by the People is arguably within their purview as the ultimate authority under the Constitution, such a claim is harder to argue for a random sample of the People.
  4. The adoption of an Initiative by the IQA followed by a vote by the nationwide Electorate provides an effective check and balance that is entirely consistent with the Constitution.
  5. When the nationwide electorate passes an Initiative, it psychologically and morally binds the entire Electorate to make their decision work, whereas passage by the IQA has less psychological and moral force and cannot expect the same public commitment.
  6. The IQA members are not as qualified as professional congresspersons to formulate the mass of complex legislation needed to run the country. However, they are far better qualified to ensure that the People’s interests are properly protected by means of the relatively small amount of initiative legislation that nationwide voters can assimilate.
  7. Both U.S. citizen groups and U.S. organizations generate the initiatives. They will vary greatly in scope and quality. Many will be quickly eliminated from further consideration while others will be of professional quality and importance equal to any produced by government. The IQA will obtain whatever information and advice it deems necessary and will advance those in the best interests of the People.
  8. It is an even larger step than the Planned Solution, and would be even harder to achieve.

Consequently, this planned Solution limits the IQA to managing selection of the Initiatives, making recommendations to Congress using Indirect Initiatives, using Advisory Initiatives for information, but requiring that the People make the decision to approve a Direct Initiative or not.