Funny how a new leader can freshen up the stale barnyard of ideas. Since Stockwell Day started chatting up referendums, defenders of the status quo have reacted with the usual cant. Recently, political science professor Heather MacIvor argued against direct democracy, a concept that includes citizen initiated referenda.

Ms MacIvor repeats all the usual criticisms about referendums and even missed a few. Here's the list: Citizenship is undermined; complicated issues are reduced to yes-no alternatives; special interests will "buy" referendums; MPs will lose their representative role; and referendums will poison our water because voters will choose a 90 percent cut in tax over clean water.

Nonsense. Far from weakening citizenship, referendums prompt public interest in serious affairs of state and promote healthy debate. Two years ago, citizen initiated referendums were held in many Alberta communities on the issue of Video Lottery Terminals, which some argued had been forced on them by the Province. For good or ill, most communities kept VLTs but at least a controversial issue had been fully debated, fought, and settled by citizens themselves. Similarly, the Charlottetown Accord referendum prompted many to ponder and debate the constitution. Would Canadians have bothered to think seriously about constitutional matters without a direct say in the final decision?

Contrast referendums - contests over ideas - with federal elections that are the equivalent of beauty pageants. Blow-dried candidates in their best imitation of seals stick to official scripts in 30-second sound bites. Political parties kill multiple trees to produce meaningless, non-controversial motherhood-and-apple-pie brochures that tell voters that they are in favour of - what else - motherhood and apple pie.

Superficial and imperfect as some elections and MPs are, both are inherently valuable and no one is suggesting replacing them with instant e-mail democracy. So long as reasonable thresholds are in place for a referendum, direct votes can be a positive addition to the democratic mix, and the representative role of MPs would continue. The crucial point is that at least citizens could pull a referendum lever if politicians consistently ignored their concerns. And far from endorsing simple solutions, referendums just might make politicians face tough issues earlier. (Suppose in 1980, Pierre Trudeau had been forced to confront chronic deficits and balance budgets over the course of his mandate. Canada's debt and accompanying interest payments would be substantially smaller.)

Some who oppose citizen referendums argue that special interest groups might influence the process. What - as opposed to now? Those who want to "buy" a referendum will have to splurge for much more than they now spend on wine and cheese for government MPs. 12,984,069 votes were cast in the 1997 election. In a referendum where a simple majority was required, a successful ballot measure would require 6,492,035 Canadians for a win. That's a tad more difficult than convincing, oh, half of the 156 Liberal MPs now ruling the country, or maybe even just a few key cabinet ministers.

The necessity for more direct citizen input on crucial policy issues and a check on power is not difficult to justify. Canadians are subject to concentrated power that gives majority governments, of any label, 100 per cent of the power for four years. Unlike the British parliament where party discipline is not nearly as severe, or the United States, where long-term Senators and Congressman regularly force presidents to say "Uncle," Canadian Prime Ministers and Premiers can lord it over both citizens and their own caucus and the results are often disastrous. (Think "Glen Clark".)

And what do opponents of referendums make of that dangerously unstable confederation - Switzerland - that has possessed robust referendum rights for 150 years? Citizens there initiate referendums on taxes, the army, the European Union, immigration and constitutional change. Such debates have hardly made Switzerland unstable. In fact, countries with international disputes come to Geneva to iron out their differences. Apparently no on thinks the Swiss are nutty or irresponsible for having thought through and voted on such issues.

Perhaps the most powerful argument is that citizen referendums will undermine the public good. Citizens will think "only" as taxpayers (like that's happened a lot over the past four decades) and poison their children's water in exchange for a tax cut, assuming the scenario is ever that stark. That's a rather churlish view of one's neighbors, but it is similar to the assumption some politicians have of their constituents: That voters are not smart enough to choose "properly" in a referendum. That's a curious view, since such politicians must believe their constituents made an eminently wise choice when they picked their MP.