Mankind has been looking for a true democracy since the days of Ancient Greece and Rome. Unfortunately, one has never been established. There have been democracies, but those would include discrimination, non-elected officials in positions of power, or some other undemocratic practice. There have been many problems associated with democracy, including defining what a true democracy would entail and how it would be executed. It is necessary to define what a true democracy would be. Would there be a direct democracy with people voting on every issue or representative democracy with elected officials calling the shots? There are problems and possibilities with each and plenty of misunderstanding to go around. One thing that almost everyone can agree on is that democracy is good, but they do not know why or which kind. Many North Americans are proud of their democracy without ever realizing how undemocratic it is, or how to make it better.

In representative democracy, there is the question of how people would be represented. Would votes by judged only by population or would the region from which the votes came be taken into account? Should areas with more population be making decisions that will have a profound impact on areas less densely populated? Would there be a way for the people to remove officials whom they no longer wanted in power? Some would say direct democracy is the answer. Put each and every decision in the hands of the people. But is this efficient? What extra cost would this bring and are the people really qualified to be making all these decisions? Does the average person have enough time to get involved with their government? Which system has been more successful in the past? There's also big business and their powerful influence to consider. There are many valid questions, but clearly not nearly enough straight answers.

Democracy is all about trying to be fair and give each person equal influence in their government. Concepts of direct democracy like The Popular Veto, The Popular Initiative, and The Double Majority would attempt to take the control of collective political future from the powerful elite. The Popular Veto is the idea that if one percent of the voters petition to have a law revoked, then it must become a referendum on which all voters must decide. On the other side of that is The Popular Initiative, in which two percent of the voters can demand that a new law be put to referendum. In an attempt to make things even fairer there is The Double Majority, which states that no referendum with less than fifty percent overall and half the designated regions becomes law. Also, "The right to recall an elected person is a firm and basic component of Direct Democracy," as The Direct Democracy Party of B.C. puts it. Supporters claim it would even be more cost effective than representative democracy because there would be less government officials, especially of the non-elected variety. They believe that with technology at the level that it is, it would be fairly simple and could be made very efficient to take everyone's opinion into account on matters of taxation, major public policy, and more. The technology exists to have direct democracy by establishing voting networks of interactive electronic devices connected to the voters' homes, and the mainstream supporters are not even asking for that. All they want is for people to have the power to make and create law and policy, through referendum. Also that as a result, people will feel better about themselves and their country and take a larger interest in the issues they must decide upon. The people would know what they need and actually be able to take the steps themselves to make sure they receive it.

The opposition to direct democracy does not agree. They believe it would be more costly and much less efficient. The government would be powerless and appear weak to other countries. The people would not take the time to correctly understand the situation, and if they did it would be wasting their valuable time. Since referendums would be so easily called, the country would be forever stuck at the polls, never able to pass a law with longevity or make a much-needed change quickly. There would need to be great amounts of money spent to educate the people on the issues and big business would have to be kept from influencing the vote. It just wouldn't be practical.

Representative democracy, on the other hand, leaves important decisions up to those who have experience in that area. It has its' own internal checks and balances that see to themselves. It is well organized and represents both regional concerns and the popular vote. It is seen by some as being more democratic because it gives the individual more power over their representative, rather than minimal influence in a vote the entire country was deciding upon. They say the people should have faith in the appointments the elected officials may have to make. It is after all, just an extension of the faith the people showed in their leader that he or she should be able to chose qualified people. It would also be difficult to change from our current system. The citizens get to vote for the candidate that best represents their needs and trust him or her to take care of them until the next election, at which point they must decide again. There should be enough candidates out there that everyone would have someone they can feel good about voting for, if not they can run for office themselves. Big business would not be able to influence national policy by, for example, running a series of advertisements convincing people to vote one way or another. The people need strong leaders, because they cannot be concerned with government policy and their own lives simultaneously. It is simply inefficient.

Critics of representative democracy say that it is inherently flawed. It cannot be democratic because the people are not making the decisions. Once a representative is an official, they can do just about whatever they want with no fear of repercussions from the people they are supposedly representing until the next election. Big business has a terribly large influence on representative democracy because it leaves the power in the hands of a few elite. It is only human for them to do what is better for them, and their pocketbooks, rather than their people. Representative democracy assumes those elected are good people and can defend the common person from their own natural ignorance. It is seen by some as not much more than a roulette wheel for a four-year dictatorship.

Sargent shows how these two views are connected to human nature. Society would know what is best for itself in the eyes of the direct democrat, while the representative democrat sees the people more as a group needing to be protected. John Stuart Mill believed that, since everyone being involved in government is not practical, the "best form of government is representative". He believed that it was human nature not to see one's neighbor as anything but "a rival". So depending on one's view of human nature, the argument can change. If people are inherently competitive and self-serving, the representative government could be seen as a necessary evil. If people are intelligent, know about the issues, and are prepared to get involved, direct democracy is the way to go. But democracy is supposed to be for everyone. How can either system work if there is a large amount of people calling for the other? How can the two ever be resolved?

The best solution, at least for the time being, is a compromise. The arguments for representative democracy are not as strong as its counterparts'; however, both make valid and very important points. The people are not being adequately represented and need more direct control over the government. However, if a direct democracy were instated, it would need to be careful not to get caught up in itself. The people would not need to vote on every single issue. There must be an integration of the two; giving people more power of what is done, but not so much that they get caught up in it. People must be educated about the world around them, but only to a reasonable extent. Government officials should not have any kind of job security. Representatives should fear for their jobs. If they do not represent the peoples' views well, like any person who does not do their job, they should be fired. Officials work for the people, thus the people should not only be the boss but exercise that power when needed. Those who wish to subvert the common good should not be pretending to serve it. It must be an efficient system, with flexibility and adaptability. The power of a country should not rest in hands of one man, or even an elite, but the in the people who live comprise most of it.