>If you have a legitimate mandate from the electorate, you can get an awful lot done.

It took Massachusetts 3 years to open a recreational marijuana shop after a ballot initiative passed for legalization.

Which is why ballot initiatives and referendums are so often a terrible idea.

The problem is the executive have no ownership of the proposal and don’t feel any responsibility for it unless they were the ones campaigning for it. In a democracy the way to get something done is for someone to get elected on a platform to implement it and then own delivering it once in office.

I’m a Brit and Brexit is a classic example of the failure of referendums. None of the political parties wanted it and for several years after we had a Prime Minister who had opposed it. Result - years of confusion and recrimination. Even when it happens (actually it already has) there will be endless arguments about whether it’s a “real” Brexit. Elect leaders you trust and the let them lead. If you don’t like the results, vote them back out.

Please don't use Brexit as an example indicative of all ballot iniatives and referendums. California (especially SF and possibly a few other cities), Switzerland, and a few other places have a large number of referendums on their ballots and they generally go alright in my opinion, even when some of the details have not been hammered out. I say that as someone that has lived in both of these places. I think the benefit to social acceptance and trust in a government because of the mandate provided is worth it by itself, and while one may not agree with many of the outcomes, the decisions rarely yield unforeseen consequences which (to me) feels like democracy in practice. Also, it provides an incentive for the public to value widespread quality public education and meeting basic living standards a bit more if immediate governmental policies depend on it.

Obviously, there are occasional problems, like the Swiss EU referendum which was approved but widely viewed as watered-down in practice, but it's worked very well in my opinion in other instances such as (in case you're curious about Swiss history) the formation of the canton of Jura.

I'm not entirely against referendums, I think there are cases in which they make sense. One is issues where it's not even really a political issue. Capital punishment for example. Another is where the question has significant constitutional consequences and a party seeks an additional mandate for their policy beyond a simple electoral mandate. Brexit could fit that category, in the same way that joining the EU did, but the change should be one the government is willing to take responsibility for implementing. It should be a supplement to their electoral mandate for a policy, not a vote to impose a responsibility on government it doesn't want to take. This was James Cameron's fundamental blunder.

Switzerland has another classic example of a failed ballot initiative. They voted in 2014 to limit migration from the EU, an initiative promoted by a party that was not in power. So again you had a government bound to implement a policy that was not their policy, which they were unable in practice to deliver. Who takes responsibility for that? It's just asking for trouble.

In California the legislature has been ham strung by a series of initiatives ring fencing spending on various areas such as education, and others limiting taxation in various ways squeezing the state budget. Of course give the electorate a vote on more spending and a vote on lower taxes, guess what happens.

This comment seems to be at odds with your original one. So if the people vote democratically for something, and the elected officials don't do it, it's the people fault for not doing democracy the right way?

I'm not sure there's a better example of democracy than when people vote for something that it happens.

> Surely you mean the only levers of political power aside from consent

Other than the fact that no nation-state/government was created by consent of "the people", there is a philosophical argument that consent to giving political power to "ruling class" or "elected officials" to be ruled over is impossible. In other words, consent excludes political power like consent excludes rape. Meaning you cannot consent to being raped being once you consent, it is no longer rape. The same thing with politics. Consenting to political power makes it no longer political power. It's like you need parental power to force your kids to eat broccoli, but no parental power exists to force your kids to eat ice cream because they consent to it.

Finally, nation-states/governments don't work in that idealized manner. Things works top-down, not bottom-up. Pretty much what you've been brainwashed to believe, it's not true.

> If you have a legitimate mandate from the electorate, you can get an awful lot done.

You can get a lot done without the mandate from the electorate. Getting a lot done has nothing to do with mandates but the effectiveness of the state organs.

> For governments without a popular mandate or support, or who are insecure in the support they may have, well, the result often isn't pretty.

Actually, governments "with popular mandates" are what you want to really worry about. It's those governments that tend to commit genocide, nuke cities and commit all kinds of horrors. When a leader starts claiming he has the mandate of the people, that's when you should watch out.

BTW, "populate mandates" are also created by force/deception.

You make a lot of interesting points, thanks. You're quite right, reality doesn't conform to ideal principles, they are only things we can aspire towards but rarely achieve, and then in only limited areas.

>> If you have a legitimate mandate from the electorate, you can get an awful lot done. > >You can get a lot done without the mandate from the electorate.

Sure, but then you're into either using force or deception.

>Actually, governments "with popular mandates" are what you want to really worry about. ...

Genocides and mass murders can be committed by governments with popular mandates sure, there are many examples, but many of the more grievous examples are from totalitarian states. Soviet Russia, Communist China under Mao, Cambodia. I don't think democracy makes it more likely.

Yes popular mandates can be gained through under hand means, sure. We have to be careful, but I think your analogy to sexual consent is very apt. Even consensual relationships can turn out to be based on deception or abusive psychological domination. Consent isn't a simple moral binary issue, thanks.