By John Koenig
Editor & Publisher
Hometown Democracy is Florida’s hot-button ballot issue of 2010. That has been evident in the traffic to this website. Our analytical article and opposing pro and con commentaries on Hometown Democracy draw far more readers than anything else we’ve posted. And the level of passion among those readers is evident in their comments – for and against.
That’s hardly surprising considering the impact Hometown Democracy could have on Florida’s economy, environment and quality of life.
On the surface, Hometown Democracy (Constitutional Amendment 4 on the November ballot) poses a straightforward question: Should voters rather than elected local government officials have the final say on changes to local comprehensive plans? Proponents insist this change is necessary to counter the corrupting influence of deep-pocketed development interests.
But Hometown Democracy also invites a much broader question, one that bores into the very structure of government established by our nation’s founders more than 200 years ago.
If we can no longer trust our elected representatives to make decisions in the public interest on land-use matters, what issues dare we trust them with?
Transportation? Health Care? Energy? Environment? Taxation? National security?
Fact is, virtually every issue that comes before our elected representatives at the local, state and federal levels has special-interest groups associated with it – special interests willing to spend huge sums of money to sway their decisions.
So why stop at land use? Why not put every decision of public importance directly into the hands of voters?
That, of course, is not what our nation’s founders intended. The constitution they adopted in 1787 established a limited form of democracy in which voters select representatives rather than make all decisions themselves. Initially, the Constitution did not provide for the direct election of U.S. senators. Until Amendment 17 was adopted in 1913, senators were chosen by state legislatures. The Electoral College is another creation of the Constitution’s framers – one still in existence so that to this day legislatively chosen representatives, rather than voters, cast the actual ballots in the election of U.S. presidents. Our forefathers created this structure because, quite frankly, they feared that total democracy would deteriorate into mindless mob rule.
That same fear is evident in the comments of Hometown Democracy’s opponents. Land-use issues are complicated and require careful study and deliberation. It would be foolish to entrust such decisions to masses of people who may not take time to educate themselves before going to the polls, the opponents say.
Yet, as brilliant as our forefathers were, they probably never envisioned a day when hundreds of thousands of dollars would be spent to win election to local public offices, tens of millions would be spent on statewide office campaigns, and hundreds of millions would be spent by presidential candidates. They built into the Constitution ample checks and balances to prevent one branch of government from overpowering another. But they built in no protections against the undue influences of deep-pocketed campaign contributors.
Clearly, Hometown Democracy’s proponents believe that our system of representative government needs new safeguards against one particular set of campaign contributors. But what about all of those other deep-pocket special-interest groups?
If Hometown Democracy passes, will voters next chose to take all critical decisions out of the hands of elected representatives? Put another way, will they stop after storming the Bastille or will they march on to Versailles?
