Direct Democracy In The UK

Direct democracy is a form of government in which all laws are created by a general vote of society. This means that political decisions are put forward to the people as they are the ones who are going to be directly affected by the outcome of the decision. An example of direct democracy used occasionally in society is referendums. A referendum is a general vote by the electorate on a single political question which has been referred to them for a direct decision. Within this essay I am going to be arguing whether direct democracy should be used more widely by weighing up the

A direct democracy can only work in a small group, so as a form of government

John Madison, author of the Federalist essay number ten, warned the nation that whenever people with similar interest group together they risk creating a faction. Whenever a faction is created the minority have a difficult time having their opinions heard. They are discriminated against and they will have to face hardships. This is interesting because although we are a very diverse nation we risk having factions. Because everyone does not vote, it seems that the upper middle class gets most of the benefits. If the minority votes someone into office that is concerned with the living conditions of inner city residents, then people will have a better chance of seeing change. We have an indirect democracy. An indirect democracy is where the people elect elites into government and the elite decide what is best for the general public. A direct democracy is where the people elect a figurehead into government. They elected official does whatever the general public asks of it. We can’t have a direct democracy in America because everyone isn’t knowledgeable about politics. If we did, the nation will be turned into

In spite of the fact that the legislature is mandated to create and pass laws on behalf of the state, elements of direct democracy have always acted as constraints. The most famous forms of direct democracy include referendum and initiative (Damore, Bowler, and Nicholson 368). Initiatives are often used to defend the interest of specific groups of citizens. The implication is that instead of the legislature deciding on issues, the citizens are left with the responsibility of determining the fate of certain policies. Initiatives need a particular number of citizens to agree to a petition so that the public can be allowed to vote on the matter in question. It means that if people feel that a certain policy championed by the legislature is not

I also believe that representative democracy will be the best choice because of the large population of people living in the United State. It will be impossible for every citizen to vote on all issues and law consider by local, state, and federal government. What if a citizen considers that an issues that is on the ballet is not important to him or her, will she or he take the time to educate themselves on the issue to make the right choice or will they guess or will they not bother in voting because is to complex? In my opinion that is why a representative of the people is best to serve on behalf of the citizen.

Representative democracy is better than direct democracy because the representative's people elect to know more about politics than the common people do, so the common people can’t make formal decisions. The United States uses representative democracy, which when representatives vote on the important stuff while representing the people. People elect officials based on if their beliefs and ideas match with each other. The people still have an opinion, but they just have someone else speaking for them and making sure that their opinions are heard. Ideally, the laws and policies enacted by the elected representatives should closely reflect the will of the majority of the people.

The word Democracy is is defined as a form of government in which the people hold the power and display this power when they elect politicians to make their decisions. A direct Democracy is the most purely democratic form of government because the people actually rule. This means people can physically voice what they want and not have their words lost because thousands of voices are being represented by one man. When people directly vote for what they want, their opinions are best voiced this way. A weakness of the government is the people who are more active in the government will have a greater say than those who are not as active.

Throughout time the concept of democracy have been debated, starting out as far back as Plato. Will citizens know enough information to make informed decisions and if so, will they choose to cooperate? In the America’s attempt to maintain a Democratic nation, it requests that citizens vote on local, state and presidential levels. However, most of the citizens are unable to form a valid opinion because of the general lack of knowledge of how the government works.

In Chapter 1 Perrin analyzes the history of democracy and focuses on the fact that democracy has been developed in different places and at different times therefore it has been interpreted many different ways throughout history. He uses examples of the years 1988 to 1990 and how in simply two years democracy had dramatically changed. In chapters 2 and 3 he draws his focus more on representation. In Chapter 2 Perrin addresses that in order to understand democracy people need to be publicly involved in it. Although Perrin discusses the importance of participating in voting and being informed he also makes it clear that democratic participation goes beyond just voting. Chapter 3 continues on a similar concept but centers on the electoral system and legislative representation and how they shape the public. Perrin states that, “Citizens don’t (usually) just naturally deliberate. Rather they do so when forums and opportunities exist to shape and nurture deliberation” (Perrin, 82). The electoral systems are structures that citizens use to trust to manage the aggregation of public opinion across differences of time and

Direct democracy is people making laws and regulations in person without representation. An example of a direct democracy is a town meeting where the people in the community can freely speak their concerns about their community. During this meeting everyone works together and vote on what actions should be taken (Direct Democracy).

The strengths and weaknesses of direct democracy versus indirect democracy is an interesting comparison. Direct democracy calls on the people to be more involved in the making of political decisions as well as calling for a more transparent government to allow the public to make such decisions. Unfortunately, with direct democracy you have to worry about the possibility of the majority making decisions they’re not knowledgeable about and causing more burdens for the country. Another flaw is it would also leave out the potential needs of the minority. Indirect democracy also produces the same problem, while the public does vote in the officials’ beyond that it’s often questionable if they make the decisions based on the majority or the minority.

On a very basic level, direct democracy can be seen as mob rule or rule by decree. The system allows the mob to overrule the decisions made by the government, refusing any consistent social contracts between the citizens. In this pure form, direct democracy cannot even be considered a system of governance at all. It is not the most fair or just system. (Schneider). In order for any individual to indulge in a causal contract with other members of the society, it is necessary that they feel that they can rely on the constitution of the society they are contracting with.

Considers democracy primarily as a process of expressing one’s preferences and demands, and registering them in a vote (Young 1995, p. 60). Moreover, decisions are formed based on what will serve the greatest number of people. Similarly, interest groups or individuals may align themselves to the more popular decisions but ideally will serve their own interest. This approach results in citizens never having to think of or understand another’s values.

Throughout history different types of instrumental regimes have been in tact so civilizations remained structured and cohesive. As humanity advanced, governments obligingly followed. Although there have been hiccups from the ancient times to modern day, one type of government, democracy, has proven to be the most effective and adaptive. As quoted by Winston Churchill, democracy is the best form of government that has existed. This is true because the heart of democracy is reliant, dependent, and thrives on the populaces desires; which gives them the ability for maintaining the right to choose, over time it adjusts and fixes itself to engulf the prominent troubling issues, and people have the right of electing the person they

Conceivably the most significant feature of a democracy is the electoral system, which defines the history and future of a nation. In the scholarly article “Comparing Democracies: New Challenges in the Study of Elections and Voting”, Lawrence Leduc, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Toronto, writes, “the electoral system… defines how votes are cast and seats allocated”. Consequently, the electoral system determines which candidate emerges victorious from an election. However, these electoral systems are not simple. Electoral systems can be qualified as majoritarian, proportional, or mixed; however, the systems of different countries all differ; especially in complexity and degree of representation. A webpage published by Georgetown University created by Charles King states, “There are many different types of electoral systems in use around the world, and even within individual countries, different electoral systems may be found in different regions and at different levels of government”. The astounding amount of different electoral systems within singular nations displays how challenging it is to choose the system best suited for a particular nation and its people. Differing electoral systems can even potentially modify the outcome of elections. Leduc states, “Applying two different formulas to the same distribution of votes will produce quite different outcomes in terms of members elected for each party”. The fact that an electoral system can