Government: Difference Between Direct And Representative Democracy

First, society grows; a government becomes needed, and in turn laws. Next, because of growth and the inability to gather the people all together, elections become needed. He describes these simple concepts as “the best balance between government and society” (Paine, n.pag.). After clearly explaining to the people his ideas, he uses his concepts to discredit the “monarchial and aristocratic tyranny” (Paine, n.pag.) in the English Constitution. He further examines the lack of appropriate checks and balances, and charges it as unable to “be the gift of a wise people” (Paine, n.pag.). In this section, Paine successfully illustrates an expectation of appropriate government, in a basic construction that puts organization to the public’s desires.

The United States of America was founded on a distrust of monarchical governments. In response to this, the Articles of Confederation vested a majority of power into the hands of the legislature. On principle, a democratic government seems to be one that would most accurately embody the principles of limited government. However, good government is one that not only protects individual rights but as Thach shows is efficient. In his examination of the national government,

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.

One difference between direct democracy and direct democracy and representative democracy is that the direct democracy is the people in control and the representative democracy is the second in comand.

Throughout the course of human history, a hot topic of discussion has always been the the role of government in our daily lives. We ask ourselves questions like “who should rule?”, “how much power should they have?”, “do we even need a government?”, etc. The point is, different people would approach these questions with different ideologies and come up with different answers with no singular answer being necessarily right or wrong. A perfect government does not exist and what we have today is still far from perfect, but philosophers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Henry David Thoreau’s ideas played a role in shaping the government we have today.

A logical starting point in an investigation of legitimate government would seem to be an account of the original purpose of government. Problems arise, though, in discovering this original purpose; any and all attempts seem to consist of mere speculation. Government is a social convention created by man.* It is doubtful whether or not there can ever be an empirically accurate account of the

Democracy is a system of government in which the utmost influence is consigned in the individuals and implemented directly by them or by their designated representatives under a free voting arrangement. According to my research direct democracy also known as pure democracy is when all the individuals come together and make decisions by voting. They are the one who decide the regulation and guidelines through which the people will oversee. In contrast a representative democracy is when the population designate leaders who makes judgements on their behalf. There are many differences between a direct and a representative democracy and some of them are that in a direct democracy the public have authority and are responsible for decision making

Throughout history, governments have rose to power and collapsed under pressure. Governments have always fulfilled their basic duties by providing a sense of order and security to people they ruled over. Sultanates, monarchies, and theocracies are just some of the many types of governments that came about in both the past and present. People in today’s world often question the government’s authority and how far they can influence people, thus leading to the highly debatable question, “Why does government have the authority to do the things they do?” Most readers, like myself, would agree that governments have the authority to do the things they do because governments have to fulfill their unique responsibilities, governments often derive power from different aspects of life which influences them, and governments are often influenced by their people.

My family immigrated to the United States three years ago so that the government of America I do not know much. However, I took Government course to have good knowledge in the United Sates this semester. Moreover, I have learned a lot of important things about government course, but today I will discuss the five most things I have learned this course. First, I can consider the beginning and growth of constitutional democracy in the United States. People consider the government admitting ownership policies and the rights such as freedom, fairly, vote. Second, I can learn the information of the federal system. Everyone thinks that they have power, so they can control anything in life. Indeed, the leader has good policies to separate these systems of the government like between the state government and the local government. Third, the government also has good policies to improve the country rich and strong. There are many different positions establishing with a special role in society such as public judgment, interest groups, and political partied in the political system. Fourth, I can see that the government tries to protect people’s freedom and autonomy. People must follow the government’s rule; they can ensure the rights of government. Also, they can have good benefits in life. Last, there are many parts in the policies; every part has extensive knowledge to hold their position. The public policies in the United States bring a lot of

The concept of a government has been around almost as soon as the human race stopped its role of hunting and gathering and began the fruitful endeavor of farming. Ever since this point, the human race has had an almost subconscious necessity for order and a hierarchy of people with power. Since the Enlightenment, there has been an overwhelming question of how a government should be organized and how the power should be distributed. In America, the government holds strong to the basic Enlightenment principles (liberty, process, separation of church and state, etc…); however, there seems to be a constant clash for how much government involvement should be issued in various aspects of the country. Also, there is the question of how the individual fares in society. This is usually argued from the stance of whether or not the individual should maintain self-reliance or if the government should have a role in assisting those less fortunate to give them the same opportunities as others. The United States government should maintain Enlightenment principles while also promoting free will in both the economy and society except in extreme circumstances; furthermore, the individual should be an active member of society, but they must have the adequate tools and knowledge if a true, effective democracy is going to be maintained

Democracy itself came from the Greek word dēmokratía that literally translates into ‘the rule of the people’. It’s the type of government that allows the nation choose its leaders with a fair and free voting system. In a democratic system the entire nation is equal and all have the right to free speech, practice the faith/religion of their choice, basically all people have all basic human rights (Unicef, New Zealand, 2014).

A government is an institution that governs an organized community. These institutions have the authority to make decisions for the society on policies affecting the maintenance of order and the achievement of certain goals. In a broad sense, they handle legislative, executive, and judiciary matters for their community. Throughout history, many civilizations had different forms of government. These include theocracy, democracy, dictatorships, and so forth. However, there are two particular forms of government that stood out amongst the rest: imperial and constitutional governments. These two are notable because they appeared many times in history, showing how prominent they were back then. Today, only the constitutional governments remain relevant because of certain factors leading to an end of imperialism.

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have,” says Thomas Jefferson regarding the size of government as well as the power that a government could have. This stance, a view that large government can be a hindrance when it comes to the idea of self-governance, is one of the anti-federalist and will be argued for in this paper. Small government is more reliable than larger government because it protects individual interests, ensures the sovereignty of the states, as well as keeping the natural right of man, being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, intact.

To begin we should examine what is commonly seen as the traditional view of politics: politics as the art of government. This point of view suggests that the study of politics is solely the study of government, the administrative arm of the state, more specifically the legislature and executive branches with a lesser focus on the judiciary wing. Government can be seen in the following way: “… institutions responsible for making collective decisions for society. More narrowly, government refers to the top

Organisation of modern states was not a smooth task. Even in the past and medieval times, monarchy or any other type of government involved use of force to create, sustain and often enlarge the domain of the state. Philosophers from the time of Socrates down to Bertrand Russell in modern times have dwelt at length on the consent of the governed, participation of the governed, opportunities of the governed, enlargement of the scope of the governed in the process of government for the betterment of individuals and institutions, societies and the world at large. Many modern states have attempted to incorporate in their political constitutions the noble ideals of different nations so that the benefit of collective wisdom is shared and applied in detail to avoid pitfalls encountered by others.