Direct Democracy: The Use Of Referendums In Contemporary Politics

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 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.

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

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.

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

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.).

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

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

What is the best form of government? Indirect democracy is the best form of government because you get a say in what laws are passed, no one person can have too much power, and the public can choose who their leader is.

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:

Direct democracy can also be called a pure democracy. It is a form of direct participation from citizens for democratic decision making to indirect or representative democracies. This can happen in the form of an assembly democracy or by initiative with ballot voting. Sometimes the term is also used for electing representatives in a direct vote. This vote is opposed to an electing body as well for reselecting elected officeholders. Direct democracy may be also known to others as a system of political institutions. In general, the term direct democracy refers to citizens making policies and law decisions with other citizens. This should not go through representatives and legislatures. There is a third approach to direct democracy which is called the initiative process. This process is for a number of states which allows anyone to propose a law. If they can get enough of their fellow citizens sign a petition it can be voted on by the entire electorate in the next election. This process has been co-opted by special interest groups; in these groups they have interests who put initiatives on the ballot to increase their wealth and power in disguise as public benefits. Since the monies interests have more resources to hire petition and signature gatherers to run advertising campaigns based on extensive marketing surveys. They use a PR which is a devious, last minute blitzes that can't be answered

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

The true stakes of this referendum become clear if we locate it into its larger historical context. In Western and Eastern Europe, there are signs of a long-term re-arrangement of the political space. Till recently, the political space was dominated by two main parties which addressed the entire electoral body, a Right-of-centre party (Christian-Democrat, liberal-conservative, people’s…) and a Left-of-centre party (socialist, social-democratic…), with smaller parties

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).