Argument: Modern technology makes consultation easier than ever.

In the past, it was impractical to organise frequent referendums due to the difficulty and expense of holding them. But with the advent of the internet and mass media, it is now easier than ever to consult the public on issues of concern to them. For example, Switzerland regularly holds referendums on all sorts of issues in an efficient manner which commands widespread public support. [1]

[1] Gerlach, Jan; Gasser, Urs. “Three Case Studies from Switzerland: E-Voting”, Internet and Democracy Case Study Series, March 2009. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Gerlach-Gasser_SwissCases_Evoting.pdf

Candidate 1: "Referendums are very artificial.

The results are often strongly influenced by factors unrelated to the proposal on the ballot, such as; the timing of the referendum (controlled by the government); the point in the electoral cycle; media coverage of the issues, which may be biased or irresponsible; and the amount of money spent on advertising by each side. For example, in the 2005 referendum held by France on the European Union Constitution, the Yes lobby was supported by the majority of the political establishment and almost all the media, and outspent the No campaign by a significant margin. Opponents argued that the referendum was not conducted on a level playing field. [1]

[1] Wyatt, Caroline. “French media in referendum ‘bias’ row”. BBC News, 21st May 2005. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4568819.stm"
Candidate 2: "Increased use of referendums is unlikely to make much difference to the quality of governance. Governments and state commissions will retain most of their power, as only a small proportion of laws will be put before the public vote even if use of referendums is increased. It will certainly make no difference to the level of corruption.

As for corporate lobbyists, it can be argued that increased use of referendums will actually increase the influence of such groups. (See Opposition argument five, below.)"
Candidate 3: "The job of a government is necessarily long term.

It is right that once the people have given it a mandate it should be able to carry out legislation with long term aims. Often good legislation is unpopular at first, but effective and popular in the long run. Such legislation would never survive a referendum. It is only fair that the government is given a chance to see if its legislation does indeed work. The people can then vote the government out of office if it fails.

Similarly, it is government’s job to lead and not to follow, especially on social legislation. For example, the US civil rights movement in the 1960s, and the equal marriage movement currently, might not command majority support from the public as a whole; [1] in order to advance equal rights, responsible government has to get out in front of public opinion, and make the argument for policies which are not yet popular enough to be passed in a referendum.

This approach is justified because parliamentarians are representatives not delegates (as famously pointed out by Burke to the electors of Bristol in 1776) [2] and can do what they think is best for the people even if that does not meet the people’s wishes.

[1] Bobo, Lawrence. “Attitudes toward the Black Political Movement”. Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 51 No.4, 1988. http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/soc/faculty/bobo/pdf%20documents/Attitudes.pdf

[2] Burke, Edmund. “Speech to the electors of Bristol”. 3rd November 1774. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s7.html"
Candidate 4: "Major constitutional changes such as the secession of South Sudan may well be appropriate for referendums, but using them to improve the democratic legitimacy of a government is misguided. Many policies touch on issues of human rights and the simple fact that a majority votes in favour of a particular policy will not be enough to convince opponents that the resulting law is fair or just."
Candidate 5: "If none of the parties support a policy it is probably because it has no significant support among the people! Much of modern politics is reactive; policies are tested by focus groups and carefully crafted to appeal to as many potential voters as possible. People may tell pollsters that they favour a particular policy (such as the reinstatement of the death penalty in the example from the Proposition side), but that does not necessarily mean that there is a grounds well of support for changing the law."
Candidate 6: "The public already has an effective veto on legislation, and retains the ultimate power over a politician’s career through its vote at general elections. When governments break their promises, or govern contrary to the preferences of their voters, they are punished by being ejected from office at the subsequent election. This is already an effective way to ensure that public opinion is never ignored for long."
Candidate 7: "Most people are apathetic about politics because they find it dull or do not believe that it affects them. This may be regrettable but it is hard to see how increasing the number of votes they are asked to participate in will have a positive effect on this trend. On the contrary, many of those who do not like politics will quickly become even more bored and irritated if they are constantly bombarded with campaign literature, television adverts and activists ringing on their doorbells."
Candidate 8: "People are currently bored with politics.

The last thing they want is more votes. This will only lead to greater overall apathy and even lower turnout in general elections. California is a classic example of frequent referendums failing to ignite any noticeable interest among its people. The 2011 referendum on electoral reform in the UK was similarly ignored by the public. [1]

[1] Davies, Caroline. “Apathy and anger dominate as AV decision looms”. The Guardian, 15th April 2011. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/15/alternative-vote-referendum-chesterfield"
Candidate 9: "Public opinion is changeable

Unless there is a minimum threshold for valid votes, freak results will occur. If the threshold is too high, on the other hand, then public aspirations may be thwarted, as for example with the Scottish Home Rule referendum of 1979, where a majority of those who voted supported devolution but not enough to get the proposal passed into law. [1]

Furthermore, public opinion changes over time. Once you have introduced the principle that issues of national concern are to be settled by referendums, there will be nothing to stop the same question being put to the public vote time after time.

[1] “The path to devolution”, Scottish Parliament history pages. http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/history/pathtodevolution/index.htm"
Candidate 10: "Most developed nations are representative democracies, in which we elect people to represent us and make decisions on our behalf. We retain the ultimate control over these representatives at the ballot box, and if we disagree with the decisions they have made we can vote for different candidates at the next election. Just because we can consult the public more easily nowadays, that is no reason to destroy a system that has generally served us well for decades and, in some cases, centuries.

Furthermore, electronic voting is still in its infancy, and liable to fraud and technical problems. [1]

[1] ”E-Voting Rights”, Electronic Frontier Foundation. http://www.eff.org/issues/e-voting"

Most developed nations are representative democracies, in which we elect people to represent us and make decisions on our behalf. We retain the ultimate control over these representatives at the ballot box, and if we disagree with the decisions they have made we can vote for different candidates at the next election. Just because we can consult the public more easily nowadays, that is no reason to destroy a system that has generally served us well for decades and, in some cases, centuries.

Furthermore, electronic voting is still in its infancy, and liable to fraud and technical problems. [1]

[1] ”E-Voting Rights”, Electronic Frontier Foundation. http://www.eff.org/issues/e-voting
