Direct Democracy: The Use Of Referendums In Contemporary Politics

California Government is a direct democracy that has affected the political development positively and negatively . Direct democracy often called "pure democracy," is a form of government that allows the citizens to vote directly on laws and policies. (Ginsberg, Benjamin, & Theodore, "we the people," 2005) The initiative, referendum, and recall are the three powers in direct democracy that allow the citizens to propose or repeal legislation or remove officials from office and a tool of special interest. ("Initiative, Referendum, Recall information article" & lecture)

Direct Democracy is defined by people as a whole who make direct decisions, rather than having decisions made by other representatives. In Madison’s Federalist No.10 he states, “a pure democracy can admit of no cure for the mischief’s of factions

Another argument for direct democracy being used more widely in the UK is that it prevents the government and MPs making extremely unpopular decisions and ultimately, negatively impacting on the general public’s life. On many problems and issues it is particularly difficult for parliament to know which way to vote, additionally with many issues that require accurate public opinion and have considerable historical impact, for example, a constitutional change. Direct democracy not only evades and prevents detrimental decisions for the whole country, but it also aids the government and helps them to maintain their popularity and further circumvent an uprising or protest. An example of this in the past is the Referendum on the changing of the voting system in 2011. In the 2011 referendum it was decided by the people that this voting change was not wanted. Holding a referendum on this particularly issue prevented an unpopular decision that might have been made by the government alone. This is significant because the government’s popularity is

Direct democracy is supposed to promote a cooperative community, people have the power to speak for their opinions. It promotes civic involvement and a meaningful society where informed decisions are not just made by the government but by the public as well. The citizens are able to learn the important information they need in order to understand issues of the government and laws that are implemented. In a direct democracy the people are able to feel that their voice matters and that if the majority of the public is against a law or feels that a person in office is not living up to what they said, they have the right to either fix the law or remove the person from office. This feeling of a voice makes the public more willing to get involved and care about the

Over the course of the Revolutionary War, the people of the colonies fought for freedom, liberty, and a fair government. They were pursuing a better society, and wanted a non-tyrannical administration. They needed their government to reflect this. The Constitution addressed and embodied the ideals and opinions of the people during the Revolutionary Era, which included a need for a representative democracy, checks and balances on the government, and a protection for the citizen’s rights.

Direct democracy can be defined as a system of democracy in which citizens participate in the majority of legislation; therefore, granting them political self-determination. A representative democracy (also indirect democracy) is a form of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people. A direct democracy has leaders that are chosen specifically by “The People”. There is no Electoral College, or elected officials, to cast the votes of the people, the people cast their own direct votes.

After viewing the video and reading the chapter, respond to the following questions. 1. List and describe the major sections contained in most state constitutions. (E.g., federalism, separation of powers, individual rights,etc.).

Democracy, by Abraham Lincoln’s definition, is ‘’government of the people, by the people, for the people’’ and referendums allow this to happen. They allow the people to make direct decisions on issues rather than allowing representatives to do so. This means that everyone gets a say and therefore encouraging and promoting political participation. As Dr. Adam Quinn, a senior professor of international politics at Birmingham University says, referendums “intrinsic worth is an exercise in direct democracy. Referendum campaigns engage national publics, often passive and sometimes actively excluded, in the business of political debate and decision-making. Those who see virtue in the idea of a more direct link between the popular will and the levers of power, therefore, admire them as an instrument of empowerment for the too-often neglected people”. Dr. Quinn describes how, using referendums, the majority of the public can take political matters into their own hands. This can be seen when looking at the 1997 election turnout of 76% compared to the turnout in the 1998 referendum ‘The Good Friday Agreement’ in Northern Ireland that had an 81% turnout, considerably higher than the election turnout. This would suggest that referendums do actively strengthen democracy because it allows the decision to be made by the very same people who will be affected by the

State governments can vary in form depending on who controls the government, for this we have different forms of government for certain states. For the state of California, we are run by a direct democracy which is held by the people as a whole. The system of government in which political decisions are made by the people directly, rather than by the elected representatives; probably attained in small political communities. Citizens of the community debate then vote directly on all laws, especially laws present by the ruling council of the city. The state’s ruling concerns regulating tax deductions, hiring city officials, healthcare, economic equality etc.

A weakness of democracy is the “Tyranny of the Majority”. This is an inevitable pitfall, because in a democracy, the power is vested foremost in the people the constituting the society itself. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote on this concept:

In order to have a complete understanding of the politics of immigration in Switzerland, it is crucial to realize the impact direct democracy has in shaping public policy and public opinion. Hanspeter Kriesi and Alexander Trechsel, two prominent Swiss political scientists, consider direct democracy not only to be the “most crucial institution of the Swiss political system” but also the most developed system of its kind in the world, both in terms of significance and in terms of sheer numbers. Swiss voters took part in 321 referendums between 1960 and 2003, over seven per year on average, by far the most numerous of the 47 nations in the Council of Europe. The importance of direct democracy in ensuring the continued salience of the

There are also some pros to having a direct democracy, when the people want to see change, they appeal and they vote. Which would truly be a government “for the people, by the people”, protecting our interests. There is a “checks-and-balances” system that makes sure the power gets distributed. Democracy also promotes equality, allows for change, doesn't put too much power in the hands

One advantage of using referendums in the UK is that they enable the public that are over 18 to approve or disprove important constitutional changes. An example of a one being used for this purpose is the 1998 referendum which was used to determine whether Blair and the Labour Party should devolve power to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Devolution in Scotland and Wales was introduced in 1998 as the majority of the public voted ‘yes’ in

not a decision that can be made easily and can lead people not to believe in

Willy Brandt once remarked:” Western Europe has only 20 or 30 more years of democracy left in it; after that it will slide under the surrounding sea of dictatorship” (Crozier, Huntington, Watanuki, 1973, 2). It would seem that democratic governments have become increasingly unable of facing “the challenges of the modern world”. Specifically, democratic European governments have become increasingly incapable to adequately represent the interests of the governed, while economic growth has also produced forces within nations that could potentially lead to the potential “regression”(Crozier, 1973, 49-50) of European states from democracy into tyranny (Crozier, 1973, 49-50).