A proposal from grassroots organization Save Vancouver Streets brings up interesting questions about democracy. It also illuminates the differences between pure democracy and representative democracy.
That might sound like a matter of semantics, but it is an underlying principle of the United States’ system of government — a system that was spelled out nearly 250 years ago.
The gist of the local issue: Many residents are pushing back against plans by the city of Vancouver to reconfigure roads under the Complete Streets policy. Specifically, residents along and near McGillivray Boulevard in east Vancouver have concerns about the road.
McGillivray presents unusual challenges for planners. It is not exactly a thoroughfare because it is lined by single-family homes and has numerous stop signs. But it is not a typical residential street because there are two traffic lanes in each direction and motorists often treat it as a thoroughfare. The posted 25 mph speed limits are regarded as merely suggestions by most drivers.
With three stated goals — reduce vehicle speeds, improve safety and comfort, and improve intersections and crossings — a Transportation and Mobility Commission has recommended removing one traffic lane in each direction along the street. The plans would provide “mobility lanes.”
Many residents are not happy with the proposal and have accused officials of a lack of public engagement. Because of that, they are collecting signatures with hopes of placing an initiative on the November 2025 ballot. The measure would prohibit the city from removing existing traffic lanes without approval from voters. As one member of Save Vancouver Streets told The Columbian: “This whole process hasn’t felt comprehensive to come up with something that everybody wants. That led us to this initiative.”
That is where questions about democracy come into play. In a direct democracy, citizens vote on all government decisions; but we have a representative democracy, with elected officials hired by the people to handle the day-to-day functions of government.
In Federalist No. 14, James Madison wrote: “In a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region.”
Whether removing traffic lanes amounts to a “small spot” or a “large region” can be debated. It seems large to nearby residents, but traffic changes in east Vancouver likely are small to people who live in, say, Fruit Valley.
Along the way, the issue speaks to concerns about government transparency and the power held by unelected bureaucrats — the kind who help develop policies for elected officials. In one example, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered an important decision last week undermining the power of federal agencies to establish rules relating to the environment, health care and other aspects of American life.
While these are important questions, requiring a public vote on myriad decisions sounds like an extreme response. What if the state government wants to increase the cost of a cosmetology license? What if Clark County wants to increase the fee for an Abstract of Judgment from $5 to $6? What if the city of Camas wants to approve a permit for the removal of a tree along a shoreline?
Because we hire elected officials to make some decisions, not all public issues should require a vote of the people. But they are worthy of discussion.
