Direct Democracy Vs Indirect Democracy

Question One:

In establishing a student government, there are two forms of democracy to choose between: direct democracy and indirect democracy. In a direct democracy based student government, the student body as a whole would make policy decisions through voting. In effect, this would be “government by referendum.” In an indirect democracy, the student body would elect representatives that would meet and make decisions based on the votes cast by the elected representatives. Both forms of democracy have inherent advantages and disadvantages.

The strengths and weaknesses of direct and indirect democracy can be examined through their relationships with the three elements of political judgement, which are: one, factual judgment drawn from information

This could be an advantage if the minority voice is a smooth talking, but sleazy, business person lobbying for a vendor permit to sell bottled water on campus, but it could also pose a disadvantage if the minority is a small group of students with a legitimate unmet need that could be addressed without serious detriment to the majority. Listening to minority opinions is essential to the functioning of a government that provides the most good for all of its citizens — majority and minority. Indirect democracy is at an advantage in terms of listening to minority voices, as its few voting members are more accessible than the whole of the student

Ultimately, it is likely that only students who are already knowledgeable about the issue being voted on, or feel particularly impassioned about the issue would bother voting. The challenge of disseminating factual information pertaining to the policy issue in a direct democracy relates to the first element of political judgement (factual judgement). It is far simpler to explain the relevant facts to a room of student representatives than to an entire campus. Thus, in terms of factual judgement, indirect democracy appears to be advantaged. However, it could also be argued that the diversity of knowledge regarding the facts of a policy would be greater and therefore more comprehensive among 10,000 than a few representative that have likely all been listening to similar opinions and looking at the same reports.

In regards to the third element of political judgement, ethical judgement, it can be assumed that the elected representatives would be no more or less adept at moral judgement than the student body as a whole; moral judgements are largely shared by communities, and any differences in moral opinion would ideally be reflected in the representatives chosen by the various segments of the student