|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Direct/Indirect Democracy | ||||||
| I think that a direct form of democracy would be better than having an indirect democracy. In the society we live in today, people would probably rather make their own decisions rather than having people they elect making the decisions. Many people are having problems because they thought the person who was elected had their views but that is not always the case, in a direct democracy the people would run the government the way they want it to run, not just how a politician says it should run. There are some advantages to having an indirect democracy however. Many people do not or cannot make decisions for themselves and need someone else to do it for them. Many people also are not smart enough to make decisions that could impact the rest of the country. Many people do not understand foreign policy and other political matters, where a politician would understand the consequences of the actions that he takes. Companies and other organizations could also try to rock the vote by paying people to vote for things that will benefit their business or organization. Another problem with a direct democracy is that no matter how easy voting could be made, there are still many people who would not vote out of laziness and uncaring. Another problem with the indirect democracy is that a few representatives don�t necessarily have the welfare of the people in mind. There is no real way to prove this, but I believe things would be a lot different if we had a direct democracy. A downside to direct democracy is that there would be so many ideas from so many people, that no one thing could be accomplished. We would be at a standstill until someone could compromise. Another problem with direct democracy is that people are not willing to compromise and change their ideas like politicians are. | ||||||
| I agree with you that both forms of democracy are acceptable depending on the situation. I believe that in small areas it would be more acceptable for them to have a indirect democracy, but at the same time it seems like it would be easier for a small town to have a direct democracy because of how few people there are. This would make it easier to get things done and make decisions. They all would probably know each other and it would probably make it easier for them to make compromises for people, but also they all would have common interests and livelihoods. On the other hand, the leaders that the people would elect from that area, would also have a very good idea of what the people want and also have the same ideals as the people of that area. I think both ways would be equally acceptable in that instance. Now in a heavily populated city I disagree with you. I believe that in a larger city it would probably necessary to implement an indirect democracy in that area. There are just too many people with too many different interests in a largely populated area. Nothing would get done because of constant debating and conflicting ideas. No one would want to compromise their ideas for millions of other people�s. They would need a few key representatives to represent the majority of their ideas. In this case it would be impossible for everyone to be satisfied with all the things that their representative represents but that is just the nature of the situation of living in a large city. Unfortunately I don�t see that we as a country will ever be able to totally agree on everything, which is probably why the indirect system of democracy is still so prevalent in society. | ||||||