THE ECONOMIST loves freedom, as America's founding fathers did. So democracy has always been, for us and the founding fathers, a "mere" afterthought to liberty, a means not an end. James Madison (pictured), in particular, was wary of even using the word "democracy" lest Americans confuse its representative form with its direct form; he preferred "republic" . So did Benjamin Franklin. Asked by a Philadelphian what form of government the constitution of 1787 had created, he replied: "A republic, if you can keep it."

A quick glance across the globus reveals that the relationship between democracy and freedom is quite complicated. There are "illiberal democracies", and free societies that lack democracy. Even within America, democracy can threaten, rather than abet, liberty, as I explain in this week's issue of The Economist. Indeed, the founding fathers would be horrified by the "direct democracy" that two dozen mostly Western states in America practice today. And so am I, who happen to live in one of them, California.

Voter initiatives, referendums and recalls were introduced a century ago during the Progressive era, for good reasons—frontier politics were corrupt and direct democracy was a way to circumvent venal legislatures. Since the 1970s, however, direct democracy has become something very different and sinister.

Starting with California's infamous "Prop 13", which capped property taxes and also required two-thirds majorities in both houses of the state legislature to raise any future taxes, voter-initiative industries sprang up in various states that now churn out ballot measures as though by conveyor belt. Getting enough signatures to qualify an initiative for the ballot is easy for sponsors with lots of money, who can afford to pay college students a dollar or more for each signature they collect in a mall.

California, where relatively few (and disproportionately old, white and rich) people vote but many (young and brown) people live, requires only 8% of the votes in the last gubernatorial election, fewer than 700,000 signatures, for an initiative that would amend the state constitution. As a result California's constitution has been amended more than 500 times. (America's constitution has had only 17 amendments since the Bill of Rights in 1791.) A former justice of the United States Supreme Court, Hugo Black, liked to carry the federal constitution in his pocket. Ronald George, the chief justice of California's Supreme Court, jokes that "I certainly could not emulate that practice with California's constitutional counterpart", since it would not fit.

The result is dysfunction. States with excessive direct democracy, such as California, Oregon and Arizona, now face daunting budget deficits because the recession has exposed the cumulative legacy of past voter initiatives. Voters love schools, hospitals, prisons, and trains. They also hate the taxes that pay for them. Recessions are often triggers of fiscal chaos, whereas ballot-box budgeting is the cause.

But the problems with democracy go beyond budgeting. By usurping the job that the founding fathers envisioned for elected (and informed!) representatives, voters infringe upon and impair representative democracy. In California voters have regulated Indian casinos, set prison terms, banned wildlife traps and gay marriage, given chickens bigger coops and much else. In many cases, there is no evidence that voters have studied the issues or even comprehend the initiative text (which can run to thousands of words). Instead, those who vote are likely to rely on attack ads by special interests or sponsors on television, or celebrity endorsements.

Of course, voters still trust themselves, as every poll confirms, so direct democracy won't go away. Therefore it must be reformed. At a minimum, California, which is unique in not allowing its legislature to amend successful initiatives at all without their sponsor's permission, must give legislators that power back. California and other states should also make it harder to put initiatives on the ballot, so that fewer and more responsible initiatives make the cut. Ideally, signature gatherers should not be bounty hunters interested in money, but volunteers believing in a cause.

Initiatives should also be simpler, shorter and clearer about budget implications. Residents should get better information from impartial sources such as legislative analysts in formats—including email if they wish—that will make more of them voters, so that not only the paid staffers and blood relatives of special interests turn out for any given ballot. And legislatures should get a chance to address the subject of an initiative before it goes on the ballot. After all, if elected representatives are allowed to do their job, voters might once again return to doing their own.