Does direct democracy work as the Progressives intended it? Why or why not?

What will be an ideal response?

Varies. Students should address both the intentions and the consequences--actual or perceived--of direct democracy. The Progressives intended to reduce the power of special interests in the lawmaking process, and to empower citizens with that responsibility, particularly as needed to bypass an uncooperative legislature and to establish popular laws. However, the process at the state level is dominated by those who have the money and resources required to gather signatures and campaign hard for a measure. Average citizens may be confused by conflicting and oversimplified messages, misunderstand complex measures, be presented with choices that require no compromise among competing groups, and be faced with measures that cannot be easily altered once passed. Students should note the ways in which special interests dominate each stage of the process. A more astute student might also note that if Progressives valued a more efficient lawmaking process (as noted in Chapter 2), ballot-box lawmaking has had the opposite effect in some cases, negatively influencing how lawmakers do their jobs by creating rules that lead to stalemate and inflexibility. An astute answer would also consider institutional impacts, which include in an incoherent and ever-changing set of rules for lawmakers, inflexible rules (such as supermajority vote requirements that hinder compromise), and institutional fragmentation, with processes having been pieced together over the years through unconnected efforts and without regard to long-term planning. Finally, students might point out that direct democracy at the local level can be more accessible to citizens because the signature requirements are much lower, but that local measures rarely generate much attention unless the issue is controversial or well-funded interests are at stake--which can mean (again) that citizens without money to promote their messages will be drowned out.