The Pros And Cons Of Direct Democracy

Does it make a difference that Athens was a ‘direct democracy’ while contemporary democracies are ‘representative democracy?

Direct democracy is a type of government system that allows the citizens to vote on laws and select officials directly. Direct democracy is similar to representative democracy, in which representative democracy allows the people to elect those representatives who govern and pass laws; also known as a republic. The differences between direct democracy and a republic are, in direct democracy citizens vote and to pass laws, where in a representative democracy the officials that the citizens elected make those decisions on their behalf. In a constitutional democracy the government enforces limits on those who govern the laws, and it allows the voice of the people to be heard through free, fair, and frequent elections. A constitutional democracy

There is a lot of controversy over which government is the best, and honestly I don’t think there really is a best form of government but I believe there that some are better than others. Direct Democracy definitely has its flaws, it is the best option open to us at this time. It gives the people the power to get what they want. America is already a form of Democracy, it’s a Representative Democracy. So direct Democracy is not too far fetched.

Our democratic system was made by the Framers to “set up a series of barriers to direct citizen participation in the selection of our leaders. “Examples of these barriers are the Electoral College for selecting the president and presidential appointment of judges.” The reasons for these barriers was the keep the people from having complete direct participation in choosing the President and members of the judiciary, because the population(usually less wealthy and less educated) would have total power over laws. There are positives and negatives of these “barriers.”

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.

Direct democracy is a structure of government that all citizens vote on policy proposals directly, and the result is uncovered by the amount of votes. For example, Cooter and Gilbert (2010, pp. 687-730) said in their latest research, “Citizens in many states use direct democracy to make laws on everything from soda bottles and horse meat to affirmative action and same-sex marriage”. There are many benefits to this structure; firstly, a responsive government is formed to the general wish of the public, meaning they can gain results quickly by voting. Secondly, in the words of Mautner (2000, pp.19) “Direct democracy satisfy human dignity and minimise conflicts, eliminate wars and save human lives. It can also cause promote human rights and minimize

Middletown city council meeting, a staple of American federalism at its core: municipal government. As one walks into a relatively large room, they will notice a row of chairs in front of a bench, facing an audience of empty seats similar to that of a courtroom. In the center, a gold bordered name plate resides with the words “Daniel Drew Mayor” centred on it. To the left ,and right of the mayor’s seat more plates with various titles like “Majority Leader”, and “Councilman” sit for the audience to clearly see who is who. As seats begin to fill the mayor calls the meeting to order, and the Council Clerk Reads the Call of the Meeting and the Deputy Mayor declares call a legal call and the meeting a legal meeting. Afterwards, the first two tasks

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.

With a general overview, a direct democracy is a broad term that encompasses an assortment decision processes, including town meeting, recall elections, initiatives, and referendums. The referendum is a process that allows the citizens to approve or reject laws of constitutional amendments proposed by the government. On the opposite side of a referendum, an initiative is the proposal of a new law or constitutional amendment by the ordinary citizens to the state government. No more than half of the states offer options of either, with twenty-five states offering popular referendum and only eight-teen states offering a recall (Bowman, 2012, p.82) This is what sets California apart from many of the other states that do not allow recall or initiatives.

Is Too Much Initiative A Bad Thing?: The Benefits of Using Direct Democracy at the State Level and How We Can Make It Better

“Compulsory voting is a deprivation of liberty and goes against everything we value in a representative democracy”

However, ‘one of the main ways individuals express their acceptance or rejection of the state is through the ballot box.’ Elections ‘provide a means for people to question and reflect on this or that government policy, the adequacy of this or that government agency, or the talents and policies of this or that party, candidate or official.’ ‘Today we would see free and fair democratic elections as the main, if not the only, reasonable indicator of whether people have given ‘express consent’ to those who hold state-derived power over them.’

As a method of direct democracy referendums have taken different forms within contemporary politics. Direct democracy is the belief that everyone over a certain age is able to participate in politics. Referendums are the most commonly used form of direct democracy. A referendum is “the principle or practice of submitting to popular vote a measure passed on or proposed by a legislative body or by popular initiative” (Merriam-webster.com, 2014). If we examine the use of referendums in political systems it is clear that there is little, if any, justification for using them. Two polar opposites that demonstrate this point are Switzerland and Slovakia. The former has done reasonably well with their use of referendums and the latter leaves something to be desired with their use of referendums. There is not a simple answer to the efficacy of direct democracy, specifically referendums. Despite the positive ideal of direct democracy through the use of referendums, it does not work in practice.

Direct democracy, refers to citizens participating personally in making government decisions, without going through representatives and legislatures. It gives citizens an great amount of participation in the legislation process and granting them a maximum of political self-determination. Switzerland is a good example of a country that has a long tradition in direct democracy. This country has been practising this way of democracy since 1291. Nowadays the modern system of direct democracy lie in an experimental phase of democracy in the 19th century,this because of the monarchies throughout Europe and their little enthusiasm shown for democracy.

n their research, Fung and Wright (2001) review the reform efforts known as Empowered Deliberative Democracy (abbreviated as EDD). They state that EDD actually promotes the idea of radical democracy and deliberation, thus inviting the citizens to take real action, take part in politics, and to enter into a meaningful dialogue with the government to make the decision-making process as transparent and efficient as possible. Hence, when reflecting on the advantages of such approach to practicing democracy, the researchers intend to indicate that the EDD model can be also helpful in deepening democracy due to a number reasons (above all due to its ability to connect “action to discussion” (Fung et al, 2001, p. 7).