Direct Democracy or Representative Democracy?

Question

Direct Democracy or Representative Democracy?

Xper 3

I've heard the tyranny of the majority argument, but isn't every risk in Direct Democracy present in a Representative Democracy yet amplified.

Direct Democracy, I want to decide.

Representative Democracy, I want to elect someone to decide.

Mixed, I want to elect someone to make the big decisions.

Select age and gender to cast your vote:

GirlGuy

Updates:

2 mo

Update: I'm surprised that so many men want a representative democracy.

I guess that was a mistaken assumption on my part.

2

4

Most Helpful Guys

WalterRadio | 2K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Guru

2 mo

Your question is ill posed.

In a direct democracy, you do not get to decide anything.

0|0

0|0
Is this still revelant?
- JNewbb
  
  2 mo
  Direct democracy permits the submission of legislation for vote by the public, submission of amendments for vote by the public, submission of repeal for vote by the public and the right to vote on any legislation.
- WalterRadio
  
  2 mo
  I have been versed in the definition for over 30 years. I have participated in direct democracy with California propositions.
  
  In a direct democracy, you do not get to decide anything. You are but one vote out of many thousands, or millions. Public opinion of voters is what decides. Public opinion is often wrong.
- JNewbb
  
  2 mo
  You are in a position to change people's minds.
  
  If the issue is especially important one can campaign on in favour or in opposition.
  
  The matter of ostensible insignificance is also not diminished in a representative democracy
- Show All Show Less
- WalterRadio
  
  2 mo
  It is a lot easier to change the minds of a few senators and congressmen. Even I've done that.
- JNewbb
  
  2 mo
  Would you not agree that disaffection, and consequently populism is in the rise?
  
  How does this reconcile with the suggestion that representative democracy better facilitates public involvement in the legislative process than direct democracy.
- JNewbb
  
  2 mo
  Your position also suggests that it is desirable that those with the capacity to influence representatives should do so ahead of the majority, but the benefit of this, so far as your delineation indicates, seems only to be personal in nature rather than universal.
- WalterRadio
  
  2 mo
  Unfortunately, populism is rearing its ugly head as it has from time to time.
  
  Whenever it does, people's rights inevitably get trampled.
  
  Anyone can speak with his representative's office, and often with the representative directly. The representative then decides whether the suggestion is worthwhile and whether to carry it forward.
  
  California Senator Dianne Feinstein, whom I've met and asked questions of a couple of times, would say that when someone came to ask for something (usually money), she would like to personally tell them no.
- JNewbb
  
  2 mo
  Is populism not a problem because it is society trying to ram a square into a triangle shaped hole?
  
  Populism can give rise to demogogary as the people are not in a position to directly tackle the nuances of constructing legislation that provides a pragnatic compromise as a solution capable of providing benefits to the vast majority. Instead we end up with extremes that barely benefit anything resembling a majority, as the legislation is based on representatives using a widely held loosely defined ideology to their own ends, rather than implementing a widely approved comprehensive piece of legislation.
  
  But populism is not direct democracy, in fact populism and demogogary can only occur in a representative democracy.
- JNewbb
  
  2 mo
  There's a comma or two missing from my reply.
- WalterRadio
  
  2 mo
  Populism is more prevalent in a direct democracy.
  
  Use California's proposition system. They get all kinds of stupid laws. They gave chickens legal rights. They voted themselves a white elephant train that will never be built. They put term limits on legislators that effectively handed the operation of the state government over to unelected staffers.
- JNewbb
  
  2 mo
  The laws may not appeal to everyone, but I ask, which is worse, bad legislation passed by a minority, or bad legislation passed and subject to repeal by a majority?
  
  Representatives can still introduce bad laws, representative democracy does not eliminate such risk as bad legislation.
  
  If representatives are the answer to bad legislation, perhaps representatives should also elect representatives to legislation on their behalf (this may sound silly, but this is essentially a central feature of the EU parliament, they do not write the laws on which they vote).
  
  Surely if people are willing to abide by impractical legislation they can also be willing to implement and abide by practical legislation.
  
  The position that the majority is tyranical implies that perhaps every vote/decision held in parliament, congress, or the courts should go to the minority; however this notion is rejected.

Most Helpful Girls

WhiteShoulder | 199 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Yoda

2 mo

Doesn't matter. Except for a few referendums, every country in the world is too big to be run by a direct democracy.

0|0

0|0
Is this still revelant?
- JNewbb
  
  2 mo
  They may have been the case once, but technological advances can always improve a societies capacity for Direct Democracy, still if it was possible which do you prefer?
- WhiteShoulder
  
  2 mo
  Republic. It allows minorities and historically disenfranchised groups (like women) to have a voice.
- JNewbb
  
  2 mo
  How would a direct democracy prevent women from having a voice? They could introduce legislation, and directly vote on the repeal and amendments of existing legislation, also women traditionally are the majority.
- Show All Show Less
- WhiteShoulder
  
  2 mo
  Guys could pressure them into voting a certain way. Less likely to happen in a republic.
  
  Also, in the only historical democracy on record (Athens), women weren't allowed to vote. They weren't even allowed to own dildos without their husband's permission.
- JNewbb
  
  2 mo
  Well surely women not being allowed to vote is a representative democracy, as men were forcibly representing the voices of women, whereas in an actual direct democracy everyone of age would be voting.
- WhiteShoulder
  
  2 mo
  True. But it still wouldn't work in any community with more than like ten thousand people.
Agape93 | 893 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Yoda

2 mo

Direct

0|1

0|0
Is this still revelant?

What Girls & Guys Said

02

bangyourhead | 2.6K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Guru

2 mo

Representative Republic.

0|0

0|0
JohnO45
Xper 5

2 mo

Representative Democracy

0|0

0|0
- JohnO45
  
  2 mo
  But the representatives should have term limits
- JNewbb
  
  2 mo
  Who should determine the term limits?

The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!

Related myTakes

Show All

The problem with American tipping culture; the absolute entitlement that comes with it.

Dating with autism from a girl's perspective

Jesus always provides when you need him the most!

Bannacookies' Low Carb Sugar Free Cookies Recipe 🍪

buttcrackjoe Explorer · Accepted Answer

Vote on all laws via cell phone app. The middle men (our representatives) can be purchased by special interests (lobbyists).
All we need to do as a people is form a government who will collect our votes tally them and enforce it.

Mob rule or gtfo

Direct Democracy or Representative Democracy?

Most Helpful Guys

Most Helpful Girls

Related Questions

What Girls & Guys Said

Related myTakes