The Brexit - the best example against direct democracy

The question whether direct democracy should be part of a functioning democracy, in my eyes, can be easily answered with yes. To which extend it should do so is a question much more controversial.

Even though it is essential for a democracy to give the possibility for the people to influence the often very separated ruling politicians through a constitutional tool such as the referendum rather than just through demonstrations. Yet cases like the Brexit clearly show that direct influence to the legislative process can have its severe downsides, too.

Interviews short after the referendum clearly showed that not a small number of citizens were completely unaware of the effects of their leave-vote and regretted it the moment they realized that people predominantly voted to leave the European Union. In other words, this indicates that referendums are not just a chance for political participation but also open to influences that can possibly mislead the voters’ opinion on the subject-matter. To some degree this risk can turn out positively when it motivates both sides to give the best arguments for or against a specific topic. It is essential to have a well-informed electorate that does not fall for populist positions which turn out false right after a irrevocable referendum. If, however, like in the case of the Brexit, the stakes are too high this risk is not worth taking.

Aaron's Edit:

The question whether direct democracy should be part of a functioning democracy (, in my eyes, can be easily answered) [WO - ^can, in my eyes, be easily answered)* with (yes.) [St;P - ^ "yes."] To which (extend) [WF - ^ extent] it should do so is a (question much more controversial) [WO - ^much more controversial question].

(Even though it) [Foc, M - ^It] is essential for a democracy to give (the possibility for the people to influence the often very separated ruling politicians) [E, coh; no det - ^ people the possibility to wield influence over policymakers, who are otherwise out of reach] through a constitutional tool such as the referendum rather than just through demonstrations. Yet cases like the Brexit clearly show that direct influence (to) [prep - ^ over] the legislative process can have (its) [E, foc] severe downsides, too.

Interviews (short) [foc - ^ conducted shortly] after the  referendum clearly showed that not a small number of citizens were completely unaware of the effects (of their leave-vote) [E, Gr, foc, coh; P - ^their "leave vote" would have,]  and regretted it the moment they realized that people predominantly voted to leave the European Union. In other words, this indicates that referendums are not just a chance for political participation [P - ^, ] but also open to influences that can possibly mislead the voters’ opinion on the (subject-matter) [SP - ^ subject matter]. To some degree [P - ^, ]  this risk can turn out positively when it motivates both sides to give the best arguments for or against a specific topic. It is essential to have a well-informed electorate that does not fall for populist positions which turn out false right after (a) [WF, Gr - ^ an] irrevocable referendum. If, however, like in the case of the Brexit, the stakes are too high [P - ^, ] this risk is not worth taking.

[* Bryan Garner, in the  entry "ADVERBS. A. Placement of Adverbs" in his magisterial guide Garner's Modern American Usage, contends that adverbs ought to come between the auxiliary and main verbs: "Many writers fall into awkward, unidiomatic sentences when they misguidedly avoid splitting up verb phrases. Although most authorities squarely say that the best place for the adverb is in the midst of the verb phrase, many writers nevertheless harbor a misplaced aversion, probably because they confuse a split verb phrase with the SPLIT INFINITIVE. H.W. Fowler explained long ago what writers still have problems understanding: 'When an adverb is to be used with [a compound] (insertion Garner's) verb, its normal place is between the auxiliary (or sometimes the first auxiliary if there are two or more) and the rest. Not only is there no objection to thus splitting a compound verb . . . , but any other position for the adverb requires justification'” (Garner, Bryan A. Garner's Modern American Usage. 3rd ed. Oxford UP, 2009). 


Jonathan's corrected version:

The question whether direct democracy should be part of a functioning democracy can, in my eyes, be easily answered with “yes”. To which extent it should do so is a much more controversial question.

It is essential for a democracy to give people the possibility to wield influence over policymakers, who are otherwise out of reach through a constitutional tool such as the referendum rather than just through demonstrations. Yet cases like the Brexit clearly show that direct influence over the legislative process can have severe downsides, too.

Interviews conducted shortly after the referendum clearly showed that not a small number of citizens were completely unaware of the effects their “leave vote” would have and regretted it the moment they realized that people predominantly voted to leave the European Union. In other words, this indicates that referendums are not just a chance for political participation, but also open to influences that can possibly mislead the voters’ opinion on the subject matter. To some degree, this risk can turn out positively when it motivates both sides to give the best arguments for or against a specific topic. It is essential to have a well-informed electorate that does not fall for populist positions which turn out false right after an irrevocable referendum. If, however, like in the case of the Brexit, the stakes are too high, this risk is not worth taking.

The problem of financing print media

The newspaper used to be the main source for the latest news and information.

In the age of the internet, however, news are provided to the reader in no time. In contrast to print media no deadlines due to the process of editing and printing make online news outlets a medium capable of reacting much quicker than its printed counterpart.

This development challenges traditional print media unlike any other in its long and successful history before.

While the content dealt with online as well as in print is very much alike, the length and with that also the quality is often much higher in the printed version of a newspaper.

The decreasing sales figures in the print sector clearly indicate that online media is about to take over the position as the number-one news source. The problem that follows from that is that by now no larger newspaper found a way to develop a self-financing online section. So basically the printed media – with its decreasing numbers – is financing the access to their free online content.

As counterintuitive as it sounds the key to the solution of this structural problem has to be the combination of these two spheres: Short news that keep the readership up to date on the one hand and longer more in-depth articles on the other hand. Probably both online and accessed through a monthly membership.