Should government policies be decided by referendum?

[Valmy]

EDIT: Were any of these left to referendum, the status quo would have held. All of these laws went against the majority.

I demand proof that the majority of the people in the US were against the Civil Rights laws, the voting rights thing, and the slavery amendments after, and during, the Civil War.  The latter maybe...but I doubt it especially by 1866 when the states were voting on the amendments.

A national referendum on those things would have returned a positive result.

[Valmy]

The only national referendum we have is the Presidential Election.  LBJ was pretty solidly re-elected after he signed the Civil Rights Act.  Lincoln was not tossed out after Emancipation.

[CountDeMoney]

Lincoln was not tossed out after Emancipation.

  Good one.

[merithyn]

I demand proof that the majority of the people in the US were against the Civil Rights laws, the voting rights thing, and the slavery amendments after, and during, the Civil War.  The latter maybe...but I doubt it especially by 1866 when the states were voting on the amendments.

A national referendum on those things would have returned a positive result.

WikipediaBy party and regionNote: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7–87   (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10   (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145–9   (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24   (85–15%)
The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1–20   (5–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1   (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45–1   (98–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27–5   (84–16%)

It may not show that the majority of people would have voted against it in a national referendum, but it does show that there was considerable division even within the Senate and Congress. There were no national polls at the time, so it's hard to know real numbers. I do know that Iowa was split almost down the middle on the law (if I remember my Iowa history, it was something like 60-40 for) - they felt that it wasn't necessary, even though it was pretty obvious that there was a disparity between minorities and whites. Many believed that the law would be forcing the agenda of minorities down their throats, something autonomous, independent Iowans abhored. Nonetheless, the Iowan statesmen voted unianimously for the law. And this is a state that has always moved in the forefront of equal rights movements. I can only imagine how other states like Kansas, Colorado, and other more conservative states would have leaned.

[Neil]

No.  Referendums are evil things.  It is the job of politicians to make these decisions.

Don't get me wrong, I think that gay marriage is terrible and I hate gays more than anyone, but if that's what politicians want to do, that's their business.  Leaders lead, voters vote, and courts muddy the waters and steal from everyone.  That's the order of things.

[Barrister]

What laws forced what change?  I didn't respond because I didn't understand your post.

Civil Rights Law 1964 - Forced changes in how women and minorities were hired, trained, and treated in the work place. Attitudes didn't change until the 1980s or better, but it would never have changed without the law

Courts enforce descrimination laws regarding blacks voting 1950s and 1960s - massive change in social status for all minorites.

The 13th and 14th amendments 1863-4 - Obvious (slavery would never have gone away in the US south without the Civil War and these amendements)

EDIT: Were any of these left to referendum, the status quo would have held. All of these laws went against the majority.

I should say I'm much more receptive to change coming from elected politicians.  You don't need to have referendum on every possible issue.

But like Valmy, I question whether all of those things were in fact unpopular with voters.

[Valmy]

It may not show that the majority of people would have voted against it in a national referendum, but it does show that there was considerable division even within the Senate and Congress. There were no national polls at the time, so it's hard to know real numbers. I do know that Iowa was split almost down the middle on the law (if I remember my Iowa history, it was something like 60-40 for)

A 20% winning margin is hardly split right down the middle.  Obviously the overwhelming majority of non-Southern politicians knew it had support in their states.  The South is like...11 or 13 States out of 50?

[merithyn]

I should say I'm much more receptive to change coming from elected politicians.  You don't need to have referendum on every possible issue.

But like Valmy, I question whether all of those things were in fact unpopular with voters.

Aside from the Wiki article that I posted, I would say that the race riots during that time period sort of indicate that it didn't go over easily.

[Valmy]

Lincoln was not tossed out after Emancipation.

  Good one.

Sometimes there can be a few disgruntled minorities

[merithyn]

It may not show that the majority of people would have voted against it in a national referendum, but it does show that there was considerable division even within the Senate and Congress. There were no national polls at the time, so it's hard to know real numbers. I do know that Iowa was split almost down the middle on the law (if I remember my Iowa history, it was something like 60-40 for)

A 20% winning margin is hardly split right down the middle.  Obviously the overwhelming majority of non-Southern politicians knew it had support in their states.  The South is like...11 or 13 States out of 50?

My point is that while the Congress may have overwhelmingly voted for it, that doesn't mean that they had overwhelming support by their states. All they had to have was enough support to get re-elected. That doesn't necessarily equate to a majority of the nation being pro-CRA. As I said, the race riots across the country kind of indicate that it wasn't a unanimous situation.

[Valmy]

My point is that while the Congress may have overwhelmingly voted for it, that doesn't mean that they had overwhelming support by their states. All they had to have was enough support to get re-elected. That doesn't necessarily equate to a majority of the nation being pro-CRA. As I said, the race riots across the country kind of indicate that it wasn't a unanimous situation.

First of all, yes it does.  Congresspeople are cowards, there may have been a few principled souls but not between 84 and 98 percent of them.  And if you are correct then in the 1964 election there should have been tons of anti-CRA candidates trying to throw them out of office.  As far as the race riots go, well nobody is claiming it was unanimous.

[Kleves]

My point is that while the Congress may have overwhelmingly voted for it, that doesn't mean that they had overwhelming support by their states. All they had to have was enough support to get re-elected. That doesn't necessarily equate to a majority of the nation being pro-CRA.

Kinda tough to get re-elected without a majority of the vote.

As I said, the race riots across the country kind of indicate that it wasn't a unanimous situation.

No legislation, ever, in the history of humanity would have been passed without dissenting votes in a referendum. So saying it wasn't "a unanimous situation" is meaningless.

[viper37]

It's the wrong approach, though.  Civil Rights and liberties designed to protect a minority can never be subjected to the will of the majority.
If we had that approach, black people still wouldn't be allowed to vote in the South.

Obviously, it can't work when there are people who can't vote, or if a sizable minority is unable to read, or if a sizable minority group is actually scattered accross the territory.

There are drawbacks to this approach, I agree.  I didn't say it was perfect.

[Barrister]

It may not show that the majority of people would have voted against it in a national referendum, but it does show that there was considerable division even within the Senate and Congress. There were no national polls at the time, so it's hard to know real numbers. I do know that Iowa was split almost down the middle on the law (if I remember my Iowa history, it was something like 60-40 for)

A 20% winning margin is hardly split right down the middle.  Obviously the overwhelming majority of non-Southern politicians knew it had support in their states.  The South is like...11 or 13 States out of 50?

My point is that while the Congress may have overwhelmingly voted for it, that doesn't mean that they had overwhelming support by their states. All they had to have was enough support to get re-elected. That doesn't necessarily equate to a majority of the nation being pro-CRA. As I said, the race riots across the country kind of indicate that it wasn't a unanimous situation.

You don't need overwhelming support in order to enact change.

[garbon]

Slavery was abolished by the Emancipation Proclamation, but the south resented it for generations and continued to treat blacks very, very badly.

Slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment.   But because the South resented it, it shouldn't have been passed?  Go fucking die.

Yeah it is odd that he picked an example which is quite at odds with his notion.