More handpicked essays just for you.
Direct democracy cons essay
Elements of representative democracy
What Are The Advantages Of Direct Democracy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said, “Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a President and senators and congressmen and government officials, but the voters of this country.” The difference between a democracy and a monarchy could not be explained any better than it is here by one of the most successful leaders of the free world. In a monarchy, all the power is given to this alienated force of a monarch and legislature, while in a democracy this power is given to the voters. Living under a representative democracy has revolutionized government by giving the power to the people rather than the power to a hereditary line of leaders like in a monarchy, …show more content…
In a direct democracy every single citizen has to vote on the issues which in an area with hundreds of thousands of people is nearly impossible. This is why representative democracies began as the people would vote for someone who would hopefully vote on their behalf on issues. This greatly reduced the time needed to solve issues and made government much more efficient while making sure the people still are represented. The United States has a very special kind of democracy as stated in the following, “The governments of territories and states were necessarily representative, in smaller associations a direct assembly of citizens was both feasible and desirable.” (“Democracy”) In the United States each county, district, state and so on have their own form of representative democracy in which citizens vote for someone to talk directly to the person above them rather than the citizens going through the long process of talking to a member of legislature. This system of representative democracy is very successful in most free world countries but some more dangerous countries don’t have any form of democracy yet. As stated by University of Columbia professor, Thanassis
Constitutional monarchies like the UK have combined the best aspects of democracy, monarchy, and aristocracy in hopes of removing tyranny, anarchy, and oligarchy. In the United States we give power to an elected body of many individuals, however, we retain power as citizens and individuals of this country through our right to vote for these elected officials. The power of a citizen outside of politics is fixed based on their ability/inability to vote. However, certain politicians have done specifically what Madison hoped this Constitution would prevent. They have created “democratic” factions through a populist perspective that has put certain people in a position of power by appealing to the common people. They have divided our society leading in comparison to the way in which other democracies as Madison explains have
James Madison, who glorified the benefits of the system of government outlined in the Constitution, wrote the tenth essay in the Federalist Papers. In his essay, Madison advocated a republic system of government instead of a democracy because it “promises the cure for which [they are] seeking.” According to Madison, in a republic, unlike in a democracy, a “small number of citizens [are] elected by the rest.” In other words, one difference between a republic and a democracy is the fact that a republic is based on representation, while a democracy is based on the rule of the majority (mob rule). Madison favors the republic form of government because representation (republic) recognized the inalienable rights of all individuals, while democracy is only concerned with the views or needs of the majority. Therefore, in Madison’s mind, a democracy is an unsuitable government, especially for the United States; Madison thought democracy is just handing power over to the ...
...stakes that were made and try to avoid them. Without a doubt, democracy was the answer for most of these governments. If leaders were formally elected by citizens to represent them, the representative would not abuse their powers. If there was indeed a loophole in the way this system worked, the government would elect again to make further decisions. If King George III considered a democracy rather than a monarchy, the British Regency Crisis would not have existed. If the directory had made decisions as a whole rather than Napoleon crowning himself as dictator, many wars would most definitely be prevented. If monarchy was not the way the French government worked during 1770’s, the Queen would not have been a young, inexperienced fifteen year old girl, Marie Antoinette. The abuse and misuse of power from these absolute monarchs inevitably led to the rise democracy.
The results of recent elections in Britain raised many significant questions about current political situation in the country, particularly concerning electoral system. Therefore the problem of “crisis” in democracy of Britain was the subject of wide speculation among analysts and political scientists over last years. In addition it is widely recognized that the traditional electoral system in the UK-first past the post- is the main cause of that crisis and should be replaced as part of a plan to reconstitute the democratic culture (Kelly 2008). By longstanding critics of the system, opponents advocate the use of proportional representation (PR) for selecting MPs. Due to this problem it is going to be a referendum on changing the electoral system of the country's parliamentary elections. Arguments in favor of the adoption of proportional representation in UK have been made much more widely in recent years than in the case in favor of maintaining the current system of the majority vote. In this essay I would like to help restore the balance pointing out some misapprehensions in the critique of the plurality vote and to indicate some disregarded advantages of the present electoral system in Britain.
Several states try to allow citizens to make decisions without elected officials. Referendums, initiatives, and sunshine laws are all ways that the states incorporate the public into lawmaking and government decisions. However, the United States is not a direct democracy because it includes elements of a republic. The government has more than five hundred thousand elected officials that answer to the public. The constitutional framers believed that the majority in a direct democracy would get carried away and make decisions that only benefit themselves. That is why the government was set up to be able to check the power of the majority. Because the government is a mixed system that combines a democracy and a republic, it is not considered a direct
Direct Democracy vs Representative Democracy The term Democracy is derived from two Greek words, demos, meaning people, and kratos, meaning rule. These two words form the word democracy which means rule by the people. Aristotle, and other ancient Greek political philosophers, used the phrase, `the governors are to be the governed', or as we have come to know it, `rule and be ruled in turn'. The two major types of democracy are Representative Democracy and Direct
The United States of America is a republic, or representative democracy. Democracy, a word that comes to us from Greek, literally means the people rule (Romance, July 8). This broad definition leaves unanswered a few important details such as who are the people, how shall they rule, and what should they rule on (July 8). Defining the answers to those questions means defining a model for a democratic system. William E. Hudson defines four such models in his book American Democracy in Peril: the Protective, Developmental, Pluralist, and Participatory models of democracy (Hudson, 8-19). Of these models, perhaps Participatory comes closest to an ideal, pure democracy of rule by the people (16-19). In practice, however, establishing a stable ideal democracy is not entirely feasible. In a country the size of the United States, it quickly becomes unwieldy if not impossible to have direct rule by the people. To overcome this, the compromise of the representative system allows the people to choose who will rule on a regular basis. The political culture that defines American politics shows that despite this compromise, America is still very much a democratic society.
When the founding fathers of the United States met together to create a new government system, they had imagined a system that limited government power and protected the rights of the individuals. The framers wanted popular consent but with limits on the amount of power the majority would be allowed. A republic government, by definition, celebrates freedom and individual rights but views too much government and majority rule as threats to individuals. (pg. 5) A democratic government is ruled by the majority without consideration of the thoughts or wellbeing of the minorities. By basing the new government on a republic ideal, the framers were hoping to create a system in which all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights. (pg. 7) However, this equality and rights were not extended to women, slaves, or the poor.
Throughout the course of history, mankind has been recorded to corrupt itself. Men have grown tired of simply surviving; they have had to take and conquer others. Absolute monarchies control wealth, land, and even lives of men. The conditions of the people were solely dependent on the conditions of the one who was in power in that particular place and time. History has proven that most men rule unwisely in their kingdoms. To avoid tyrannical rule, some make an attempt to set up a government in which the people ruled themselves. This form of government is called a democracy, or “rule of the people.” History has also revealed through the Greeks and the French Revolution, that a democracy that gives complete power to the people, “absolute democracy”, is nothing more than a short prelude to tyranny.
The American government prides itself on the foundational principle of democracy which allows individual voices to be heard. Afterall, the roots of power in our nation stem from the people. The Constitution was established to ensure the balance of powers among the federal government, state legislature, and the common people. Time, however, has worked against the American people in the battle towards democracy. The idea of a governing body drawing its power directly from its constituents has been undermined by the corrupt nature of modern politics where politicians act out of self-interest. While the Constitution and later amendments had every intention of securing basic liberties, certain limitations later undermined the original intentions of the founding fathers to give power back to the people by placing the larger majority of power in the hands of the state.
Democracy is not a contemporary phenomenon. It did not originate here in North America. Rather, its practice began---more than 2,000 years ago---in Athens, a city-state, in the Greek Mediterranean. The philosophers Aristotle and Plato attested to that fact in their writings. It is in Plato’s Republic that one finds the earliest definition of democracy, which is briefly, “the rule of the governed.” Plato compares democracy to monarchy, or rule of the one, oligarchy, or rule of the elite, and lastly, timocracy, or rule by property owners. Interestingly enough, the Republic’s author believed the rule of a philosopher-king was preferable to that of the masses. The Politics, written by Aristotle, provided a very robust explanation and justification of democracy, which will be detailed later in this paper. Nevertheless, democracy is synonymous with popular sovereignty or the notion that all within a human community have a say in the matters that affect them all.
One of the contemporary definitions of democracy today is as follows: “Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives; Rule by the majority” (“Democracy” Def.1,4). Democracy, as a form of government, was a radical idea when it manifested; many governments in the early history of the world were totalitarian or tyrannical in nature, due to overarching beliefs that the strong ruled over the weak.
More importantly, what is a democracy exactly? Some would define it as a form of government where the people rule, others as where the poor rule, and I would say it is where everyone contributes in how the government is ran but do not control the final decisions made. In Aristotle 's "Democracy and Oligarchy", he discusses the different kinds of democracies that exist and how equality plays a huge role in defining it. Without equality, or even limiting it, it can change a democracy into an oligarchy. He goes into detail about each kind there is and further analyzes how regardless of having similar elements, they are each unique in their own way.
... result of a direct democracy, complications like getting every citizen to vote on every single issue, something close to impossible with modern populations that grow like grass in springtime. These changes have caused democracy to become intertwined with other forms of government, and while they have caused a deviation from pure democracy, they have allowed countless nations to function efficiently while maintaining the basic pillar of democracy: that ultimate authority and power is derived from the citizens.
Democracy is important and valuable to the people of the United States. It is the form of government that rules us all. Democracy is one type of government with different variations. The idea of democracy has two meanings. The ideal and the real. The ideal is that democracy that listens to everyone and gives freedom as well as equality. For example, there is direct democracy, in which every person votes to come to an agreement. This is a type of democracy that cannot be accomplished in the United States due to the population size. Instead we have what is called a representative democracy or the real type of democracy. In this type of democracy, we the people get to choose someone to represent our values an opinions and that person reports this to the government. We have this type of democracy because perfect democracy does not exist. It would be extremely hard to accomplish or even come close to it. The reality is that the United States is one of the closest best forms of democracy, yet it’s far from perfect. The U.S. and what makes it a working democracy contains more than just representation. The government is made up of the Constitution, the rule of the majority, public opinion, elections, mass media, interest