Direct Democracy Vs Indirect Democracy

As democracy is in play, the public has all the power and can move to continue with a certain form of representation or to change to something else. The public also has also been determined to hold the power in influencing policies in the sense that they choose which leaders to elect given the mandates they will claim to fulfill. Representation is an important issue as it influences how a country will achieve its objectives and how the leaders chosen will go about

While both these systems are forms of democracy, they are very distant from one and other in a multitude of ways. It is foolish to entertain the large question of which is better overall, because, inevitably, such a conclusion would be born from subjectivity—something scientific scholars strive to avoid. (No one can really define a “good government” without bringing their own biases into play.) To avoid this pitfall, one must ask a more specific query. One matter of particular interest is group grievance and how it may be affected by the different aspects of these two systems of government. Do minorities get better representation under parliamentarianism than presidentialism? Can one observe more group grievance in nations that have adopted presidentialism instead of parliamentarianism? Is one system better at offering their citizens a general sense of security? These are just some of the imperative questions one should attempt to answer in tackling the task of comparing how these systems influence the level of group grievance within a given

But the biggest benefit of a direct democracy is that the people actually get a say instead of appointing a representative and hoping that the representatives won’t end up being close minded to the needs of all the people. Also, because the people will actually get a say, then there won’t always be complaints that someone didn’t get a voice. Of course there will still be people who are unhappy, but this is to be expected in a democratic system. A direct democracy dismantles almost all of the other

My second principle,deals with a political society that defines the political government. In my opinion, there's dozens of political government, although, the most greatest efficient type of government is a representative democracy. The public still has a say in the politics of the nation, instead of a two party system, similar to the U.S., I consider a parliamentary system more useful. A parliamentary system enhances the ways conclusions are made. Throughout the years, the American two party system has been driving the nation to its doom by arguing the same problem and never agreeing. That's why the countries in my previous paragraph were able to agree with topics that America still argues. additionally, less elections or in better terms

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

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.”

Aristotle views direct democracy negatively because he believes that the wrong people are in charge of the government. “But a city ought to be composed, as far as possible, of equals and similars; and these are generally middle classes” (Aristotle). In their direct democracy, the people participating had to meet a certain criteria such as being older than 18 and a male citizen. He doesn’t agree with the higher class being in charge but rather believes that the middle class should be in charge. The high class disregard what the lower classes have to say and even held private sessions in order to make decisions themselves.

In direct elections, politicians are responsible to the voters who elected them. If they have hopes of being reelected, they must listen and respond to their constituents. This wasn’t always the case in the Senate. The general public did not directly elect U.S. senators until 1913, when Congress passed the 17th Amendment to the Constitution. Prior to this, state legislatures voted for senators. The United States does not have direct election of its president, yet most national, state and local offices are filled by the candidate with the most votes. Elections are complex processes, and direct elections have both advantages and

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.

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.

There are many aspects of Athenian culture that lead it to be a successful city state. The most important of those aspects was it’s democratic form of government.

We are going to take an in-depth look at how direct democracy works in Florida, and in particular what it means for initiatives, referendums, and recalls. We will then look at some of the state’s important laws that were enacted through the initiative process as well as some of the problems with the system as it stands today. The state passed a ‘Florida Supermajority Requirement Amendment’ or better known as ‘Amendment 3’ in November of 2006 requiring that all constitutional amendments went from a majority (50% = 1) to a supermajority (60%) vote requirement for passage. Ironically this amendment was approved by a 57.8% vote. The effect that has had and will continue to have on Florida’s politics will be looked at as well, highlighting the good

Our experiment in Democracy was very effective based from the federal, state, and local view. When looking up the definition of Democracy, it come out as a, noun; “A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.” Democracy originated in the late 16th century and comes from two Greek words, word one being, “Demos" which means the people, and work two, "Kratia" which means power or authority. Mainly meaning a form of government that gives power to the people. The first known use of democracy were the Greeks. All citizens were to meet and discuss the policies, then make decisions by majority rule (“What Is Democracy?”) The only thing was, it was very exclusive,

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.

Direct democracy has given Californians a since of freedom and choice for who runs their state. You could see this advantage/disadvantage (based on personal opinion) in 2003. In 2003, the governor of California, Govenor Gray Davis was removed from office by a recall (Bowman, 2012, p 85). The states budget