What do you think?
Rate this book
Let the People Rule: How Direct Democracy Can Meet the Populist Challenge
How referendums can diffuse populist tensions by putting power back into the hands of the people Propelled by the belief that government has slipped out of the hands of ordinary citizens, a surging wave of populism is destabilizing democracies around the world. As John Matsusaka reveals in Let the People Rule, this belief is based in fact. Over the past century, while democratic governments have become more efficient, they have also become more disconnected from the people they purport to represent. The solution Matsusaka advances is familiar but surprisingly underused: direct democracy, in the form of referendums. Drawing on examples from around the world, Matsusaka shows how direct democracy can bring policies back in line with the will of the people (and provide other benefits, like curbing corruption). Taking lessons from failed processes like Brexit, he also describes what issues are best suited to referendums and how they should be designed, and he tackles questions that have long vexed direct democracy: can voters be trusted to choose reasonable policies, and can minority rights survive majority decisions? The result is one of the most comprehensive examinations of direct democracy to date--coupled with concrete, nonpartisan proposals for how countries can make the most of the powerful tools that referendums offer.
- GenresPoliticsNonfiction
272 pages, Hardcover
Published February 18, 2020
7 people are currently reading
136 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
February 27, 2021
American democracy is sick, and the recent attack on the U.S. Capitol is not the only sign of this. Voter suppression, gerrymandering, and partisan entrenchment have collectively made the United States an increasingly divided and antidemocratic place to govern. Plenty has been written on these problems and how best to confront them, with ideas ranging from constitutional conventions to right-wing calls for martial law. 'Let the People Rule' by Dr. John G Matsusaka (USC Marshall) consequently finds itself in crowded and chaotic company. Fortunately, Dr. Matsusaka's thesis is as straightforward as it is effective: "let the people rule" through referendums to make American democracy more closely reflect its population.
Full disclosure, I was not an advocate for referendums before I read this book. America's lifelong history of racism and voter suppression made me suspect referendums would be as exploitable as any other voting method this country. The disastrous rollout of Brexit did nothing to restore my confidence in referendums, but these concerns were swiftly rectified by Matsusaka's exhaustive and remarkably persuasive findings on the subject. "Although voters appear to operate with limited substantive information about government, politics, and policy," he writes, "this does not necessarily prevent them from voting in a way that reflects their values and interests." I agree with this. The problem is that voting in a two-party system in a nation the size and population of the United States requires enormous compromise, even on issues that public opinion is measurably more left-of-center of than their elected officials. 68% of Americans support the legalization of Marijuana (Gallup, 2020); 63% of Americans favor a single government health care program (Pew, 2020); 61% think abortion should be legal in all or most cases (Pew, 2019); and more than 50% of Americans favored Donald Trump's immediate removal after the 2021 siege of the U.S. Capitol (Quinnipiac, Data for Progress, Morning Consult, YouGov, Ipsos, ABC News/The Washington Post, 2021).
Due to the overwhelming number and complexity of issues voters have to decide on, "they use information shortcuts to manage their collective limitations." Referendums could allowing voters to circumvent these shortcomings both in the U.S. government and in themselves. Matsusaka proposes are six reforms: "Advisory" referendums called by Congress, petition, or required on specific issues; "Binding" referendums called by petition or required on specific issues; and—the big one—"Constitutional amendments" proposed by petition. Naturally, this would require significant changes to the U.S. Constitution, but since such changes could realistically be passed through one amendment, I view Matsusaka's proposal as less of what "should" be done to make our government more representative and more what "could" be done in as few steps as possible.
The result is the most persuasive argument I have ever read on referendums. 'Let the People Rule' succeeds masterfully, and I highly recommend it to educators, researchers, and political activists. 5-stars. Get this book and put it theories into practice.
Full disclosure, I was not an advocate for referendums before I read this book. America's lifelong history of racism and voter suppression made me suspect referendums would be as exploitable as any other voting method this country. The disastrous rollout of Brexit did nothing to restore my confidence in referendums, but these concerns were swiftly rectified by Matsusaka's exhaustive and remarkably persuasive findings on the subject. "Although voters appear to operate with limited substantive information about government, politics, and policy," he writes, "this does not necessarily prevent them from voting in a way that reflects their values and interests." I agree with this. The problem is that voting in a two-party system in a nation the size and population of the United States requires enormous compromise, even on issues that public opinion is measurably more left-of-center of than their elected officials. 68% of Americans support the legalization of Marijuana (Gallup, 2020); 63% of Americans favor a single government health care program (Pew, 2020); 61% think abortion should be legal in all or most cases (Pew, 2019); and more than 50% of Americans favored Donald Trump's immediate removal after the 2021 siege of the U.S. Capitol (Quinnipiac, Data for Progress, Morning Consult, YouGov, Ipsos, ABC News/The Washington Post, 2021).
Due to the overwhelming number and complexity of issues voters have to decide on, "they use information shortcuts to manage their collective limitations." Referendums could allowing voters to circumvent these shortcomings both in the U.S. government and in themselves. Matsusaka proposes are six reforms: "Advisory" referendums called by Congress, petition, or required on specific issues; "Binding" referendums called by petition or required on specific issues; and—the big one—"Constitutional amendments" proposed by petition. Naturally, this would require significant changes to the U.S. Constitution, but since such changes could realistically be passed through one amendment, I view Matsusaka's proposal as less of what "should" be done to make our government more representative and more what "could" be done in as few steps as possible.
The result is the most persuasive argument I have ever read on referendums. 'Let the People Rule' succeeds masterfully, and I highly recommend it to educators, researchers, and political activists. 5-stars. Get this book and put it theories into practice.
February 9, 2025
Picked this up since I was interested in the subject matter and couldn’t find any other dedicated modern analyses of direct democracy. However if I’m being honest, getting through this was a chore. I felt the author over-explained so many concepts that were completely self evident instead of elucidating insights that come from studying this topic full time (which were primarily in the first half of the book). He repeated himself constantly and kept saying what he was about to say next, to a degree that was seriously frustrating.
All that said, this is a pretty thorough piece of work, and I still feel like I learned enough about the topic to make it worth my while. His closing statement sums the problem up well, we cannot keep subsuming power under singlular institutions or faceless bureaucracies and then act surprised when the general populace feels powerless or when those very same levers are pulled to do things we don’t like. It’s patronizing to think people can’t make decisions for themselves, part of some great national lie we tell ourselves in the US. If you can build a system with enough clear information and guard rails, people can indeed rule themselves.
All that said, this is a pretty thorough piece of work, and I still feel like I learned enough about the topic to make it worth my while. His closing statement sums the problem up well, we cannot keep subsuming power under singlular institutions or faceless bureaucracies and then act surprised when the general populace feels powerless or when those very same levers are pulled to do things we don’t like. It’s patronizing to think people can’t make decisions for themselves, part of some great national lie we tell ourselves in the US. If you can build a system with enough clear information and guard rails, people can indeed rule themselves.
March 1, 2022
--3.5 stars rounded up--
I found this to be a very well-structured, readable and thorough exploration of direct democracy, full of examples from recent history. While I felt that the author occasionally failed to convince me of his point (for example, I felt that the evidence on minority rights was potentially quite damning), I found much of the work to be relatively persuasive and have come away with a slightly more positive view of direct democracy than I had expected to.
I recently read a book called Renovating Democracy that included its own take on how direct democracy can deal with populism, in which the authors Gardels and Berggreun tended to favour a system where the people, as well as an unelected group of qualified experts (or, as Matsusaka calls them, technocrats), can raise issues for voting - the main difference being that technocrats wouldn't need to collect signatures but the people would. While I did enjoy Renovating Democracy (particularly for its analysis of the problems we are facing and their causes), I didn't like this idea as it seemed clear that the writers would see themselves in this category of experts, whose opinions are above the need for gathering signatures. Unfortunately, this alienated me from their ideas on direct democracy somewhat as they began to feel self-serving. As for Matsusaka's analysis, however, there is no sense of this whatsoever.
Matsusaka's, who's book focuses purely on direct democracy, is completely free of the kind of elitism mentioned above and his faith in his fellow citizens is plain to see. He gives countless examples on the pros and cons of initiatives and referendums, detailing how and when they should be used. On occasion, I felt he was unable to prove that direct democracy is a superior system to others (as in the case of minority rights), but since he is promoting a direct democracy that goes hand in hand with representative democracy, and doesn't entirely replace it, then his argument feels pretty cogent to me.
Having spent four years living through Brexit (and a further two years living through its consequences), I am very aware of the danger that a poorly executed referendum can do, not only to policy, but to the public's opinion of democracy and of one another (in the end, both sides felt that democracy's tenets had not been respected). While Matsusaka does acknowledge some of the problems of the Brexit referendum, I don't know if he is aware of the depth of those problems.
For example. when he wrote about how the abortion issue in Italy was 'never discussed again' after a referendum, all I could think about was how the Brexit referendum has been discussed pretty much non-stop ever since, and six years after the initial vote took place there is still a huge, bitter division in British society that has only recently BEGUN to heal. One of the only positive effects of COVID has been to give us all something else to worry about and a reason to 'pull together' again. Still though, the resentment is there, and it is well understood that its generally better not to bring it up (even with close friends) unless you're looking for an argument. I can say with complete confidence that millions of friendships have been lost altogether based on this issue alone.
For this reason, I'm not completely convinced by Matsusaka's ideas on referendums but, at the same time, the simple idea that 'it can't be any worse than what we've already got' is a persuasive one, and I feel he does an excellent job of showing how populism can be moderated within a system that has strong elements of direct democracy.
In closing then, a very good book that I'd definitely recommend to anyone interested in the subject.
I found this to be a very well-structured, readable and thorough exploration of direct democracy, full of examples from recent history. While I felt that the author occasionally failed to convince me of his point (for example, I felt that the evidence on minority rights was potentially quite damning), I found much of the work to be relatively persuasive and have come away with a slightly more positive view of direct democracy than I had expected to.
I recently read a book called Renovating Democracy that included its own take on how direct democracy can deal with populism, in which the authors Gardels and Berggreun tended to favour a system where the people, as well as an unelected group of qualified experts (or, as Matsusaka calls them, technocrats), can raise issues for voting - the main difference being that technocrats wouldn't need to collect signatures but the people would. While I did enjoy Renovating Democracy (particularly for its analysis of the problems we are facing and their causes), I didn't like this idea as it seemed clear that the writers would see themselves in this category of experts, whose opinions are above the need for gathering signatures. Unfortunately, this alienated me from their ideas on direct democracy somewhat as they began to feel self-serving. As for Matsusaka's analysis, however, there is no sense of this whatsoever.
Matsusaka's, who's book focuses purely on direct democracy, is completely free of the kind of elitism mentioned above and his faith in his fellow citizens is plain to see. He gives countless examples on the pros and cons of initiatives and referendums, detailing how and when they should be used. On occasion, I felt he was unable to prove that direct democracy is a superior system to others (as in the case of minority rights), but since he is promoting a direct democracy that goes hand in hand with representative democracy, and doesn't entirely replace it, then his argument feels pretty cogent to me.
Having spent four years living through Brexit (and a further two years living through its consequences), I am very aware of the danger that a poorly executed referendum can do, not only to policy, but to the public's opinion of democracy and of one another (in the end, both sides felt that democracy's tenets had not been respected). While Matsusaka does acknowledge some of the problems of the Brexit referendum, I don't know if he is aware of the depth of those problems.
For example. when he wrote about how the abortion issue in Italy was 'never discussed again' after a referendum, all I could think about was how the Brexit referendum has been discussed pretty much non-stop ever since, and six years after the initial vote took place there is still a huge, bitter division in British society that has only recently BEGUN to heal. One of the only positive effects of COVID has been to give us all something else to worry about and a reason to 'pull together' again. Still though, the resentment is there, and it is well understood that its generally better not to bring it up (even with close friends) unless you're looking for an argument. I can say with complete confidence that millions of friendships have been lost altogether based on this issue alone.
For this reason, I'm not completely convinced by Matsusaka's ideas on referendums but, at the same time, the simple idea that 'it can't be any worse than what we've already got' is a persuasive one, and I feel he does an excellent job of showing how populism can be moderated within a system that has strong elements of direct democracy.
In closing then, a very good book that I'd definitely recommend to anyone interested in the subject.
July 16, 2020
This is a very very well structured and comprehensive proposal for the expansion of direct democratic options in the USA (but also, in every other country, adapted to the local needs and political history).
The book starts with the notion that people are loosing confidence to the system because they believe that control is drifting away to the hands of unelected elites. JGM spends a number of chapters and truly proves "that people feel like they are losing control of government because t h e y a r e losing control of it." It seems that during the 20th century important decisions affecting the lives of millions were taken by unelected elites and state bureaucracies by processes that are not controlled either by elected representatives or the people.
This feeling (based on facts) led to a surge of populism globally with the danger that it may lead to populistic authoritative strongmen because people may think that "if government is going to be autocratic, the people might decide it is better to have their autocrats running it than the autocrats of elites". JGM argues that Direct Democracy can restore peoples' faith to the system by giving them more power, i.e. going back to the american example of the true Populist and Progressive democratic reforms that happened approx. one century ago.
The rest of the book focus on the proposed direct democratic tools by JGM, how quickly can be implemented and what the legal obstacles may be. Also, discuss the history of direct democracy in US States, in Switzerland and other examples around the globe even in places that would be unexpected to find referendums in place (e.g Italy, Taiwan, Uruguay etc). Also, based on facts and previous structured scientific research on the matter, JGM discuss potential benefits and risks related to Direct Democracy. This gives the opportunity to correct some counterfactual myths that still prevail at least among some groups (especially, among the elites) against Direct Democracy. For the same reason JGM reviews two actual examples (Proposition 13 in California & BRexit referendum in the UK) in order to examine the consequences, the strong and the week points of them, how referenda worked in real life and what could had been done better.
After this process, the collection and discussion of facts, JGM summarizes the Best Practices, should referenda will be used nationwide in the USA. As he says "... we should take a long-run perspective and shape our democratic institutions to promote the underlying value of self-government rather than seek to enhance the nondemocratic power of the branch that our side currently controls". Letting the elites rule in an authoritative way through technocratic, unelected mechanisms is not the answer. We should LET THE PEOPLE RULE!
The book starts with the notion that people are loosing confidence to the system because they believe that control is drifting away to the hands of unelected elites. JGM spends a number of chapters and truly proves "that people feel like they are losing control of government because t h e y a r e losing control of it." It seems that during the 20th century important decisions affecting the lives of millions were taken by unelected elites and state bureaucracies by processes that are not controlled either by elected representatives or the people.
This feeling (based on facts) led to a surge of populism globally with the danger that it may lead to populistic authoritative strongmen because people may think that "if government is going to be autocratic, the people might decide it is better to have their autocrats running it than the autocrats of elites". JGM argues that Direct Democracy can restore peoples' faith to the system by giving them more power, i.e. going back to the american example of the true Populist and Progressive democratic reforms that happened approx. one century ago.
The rest of the book focus on the proposed direct democratic tools by JGM, how quickly can be implemented and what the legal obstacles may be. Also, discuss the history of direct democracy in US States, in Switzerland and other examples around the globe even in places that would be unexpected to find referendums in place (e.g Italy, Taiwan, Uruguay etc). Also, based on facts and previous structured scientific research on the matter, JGM discuss potential benefits and risks related to Direct Democracy. This gives the opportunity to correct some counterfactual myths that still prevail at least among some groups (especially, among the elites) against Direct Democracy. For the same reason JGM reviews two actual examples (Proposition 13 in California & BRexit referendum in the UK) in order to examine the consequences, the strong and the week points of them, how referenda worked in real life and what could had been done better.
After this process, the collection and discussion of facts, JGM summarizes the Best Practices, should referenda will be used nationwide in the USA. As he says "... we should take a long-run perspective and shape our democratic institutions to promote the underlying value of self-government rather than seek to enhance the nondemocratic power of the branch that our side currently controls". Letting the elites rule in an authoritative way through technocratic, unelected mechanisms is not the answer. We should LET THE PEOPLE RULE!
August 3, 2020
People are losing belief in democracy, which explains the rise in populism all across the globe. The author delves deep into the causes of this phenomenon. The most beautiful aspect of this book is that it doesn't just look at these issues from a current perspective, but goes far back into history, to show how the system has changed, what went wrong where, and how different countries (some surprises there) are doing so well with referendums. Another interesting feature is the analysis on what ailed the brexit referendum. The author then gives a general formula on what topics should be sent to the public for referendum, and which ones are better off being presided upon by elected representatives. In short, it offers a very strong case for letting the people rule, as they are more than capable of looking after their own interests. Imposing unelected judiciary (happens a lot in India) or technocrats is a sureshot way of ensuring that policies will not be in consonance with public sentiment.
July 14, 2020
Direct democracy is lit.
August 20, 2024
Very well organized and easy to read. Plain and convincing.
Although as a minority, you're kind of left with an impression that "you're screwed one way or the other".
Although as a minority, you're kind of left with an impression that "you're screwed one way or the other".
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews