essay on direct democracy

Direct Democracy: Definition, Examples, Pros and Cons

Harold Cunningham / Getty Images

• B.S., Texas A&M University

Direct democracy, sometimes called "pure democracy," is a form of democracy in which all laws and policies imposed by governments are determined by the people themselves, rather than by representatives who are elected by the people.

In a true direct democracy, all laws, bills, and even court decisions are voted on by all citizens.

Brief History

The first examples of direct democracy can be found in the ancient Greek city-state of Athens, where decisions were made by an Assembly of some 1,000 male citizens. During the 17th century, similar people’s assemblies were used in many Swiss towns and town meetings in colonial America . By the 18th century, early U.S. states started using procedures in which constitutions or constitutional amendments were ratified by direct democracy. During the 19th century, Switzerland and many U.S. states incorporated direct democracy in their constitutions. The continued use of direct democracy originated from three major types of developments:

• Attempts by social classed to curb the political power of a dominating oligarchy . 
• Processes leading to political or territorial autonomy or independence for legitimizing and integrating emerging countries. 
• The transformation from authoritarian rule to democracy, as in Germany’s regional states after World War II.

Modern democracy developed as people gradually demanded a larger share of political representation and extension of representative voting rights. Constitutions, civil rights, and universal suffrage became identified with “democracy” based on the principles of popular sovereignty , freedom, and political equality.

Direct vs. Representative Democracy

Direct democracy is the opposite of the more common representative democracy , under which the people elect representatives who are empowered to create laws and policies for them. Ideally, the laws and policies enacted by the elected representatives should closely reflect the will of the majority of the people.

While the United States, with the protections of its federal system of “ checks and balances ,” practices representative democracy, as embodied in the U.S. Congress and the state legislatures, two forms of limited direct democracy are practiced at the state and local level: ballot initiatives and binding referendums , and recall of elected officials .

Ballot initiatives and referendums allow citizens to place—by petition—laws or spending measures typically considered by state and local legislative bodies on statewide or local ballots. Through successful ballot initiatives and referendums, citizens can create, amend, or repeal laws, as well as amend state constitutions and local charters.

Direct Democracy in the United States

In the New England region of the United States, towns in some states such as Vermont use direct democracy in town meetings to decide local affairs. A carryover from America’s British colonial era , the practice predates the founding of the country and the U.S. Constitution by over a century.  

The framers of the Constitution feared that direct democracy could lead to what they called the “tyranny of the majority.” For example, James Madison , in Federalist No. 10 , specifically calls for a constitutional republic employing representative democracy over a direct democracy to shield the individual citizen from the will of the majority. “Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society,” he wrote. “Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.”

In the words of Declaration of Independence signer John Witherspoon: “Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state—it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage.” Alexander Hamilton agreed, stating that “a pure democracy, if it were practicable, would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure, deformity.”

Despite the framers' intentions at the beginning of the republic, direct democracy in the form of ballot initiatives and referendums are now widely used at the state and county level.

Examples of Direct Democracy: Athens and Switzerland

Perhaps the best example of direct democracy existed in ancient Athens, Greece. While it excluded many groups including women, enslaved people, and immigrants from voting, Athenian direct democracy required men over the age of 20 to vote on all major issues of government. Even the verdict of every court case was determined by a vote of all the people.  

In the most prominent example in modern society, Switzerland practices a modified form of direct democracy under which any law enacted by the nation’s elected legislative branch can be vetoed by a vote of the general public. In addition, citizens can vote to require the national legislature to consider amendments to the Swiss constitution.  

Pros and Cons of Direct Democracy

While the idea of having the ultimate say over the affairs of government might sound tempting, there are both good and bad aspects of direct democracy that need to be considered:

3 Pros of Direct Democracy

• Full Government Transparency: Without a doubt, no other form of democracy ensures a greater degree of openness and transparency between the people and their government. Discussions and debates on major issues are held in public. In addition, all successes or failures of the society can be credited to—or blamed on—the people, rather than the government.
•  More Government Accountability: By offering the people a direct and unmistakable voice through their votes, direct democracy demands a great level of accountability on the part of the government. The government cannot claim it was unaware of or unclear on the will of the people. Interference in the legislative process from partisan political parties and special interest groups is largely eliminated.
• Greater Citizen Cooperation: In theory at least, people are more likely to happily comply with laws they create themselves. Moreover, people who know that their opinions will make a difference are more eager to take part in the processes of government.

3 Cons of Direct Democracy

• We Might Never Decide: If every American citizen were expected to vote on every issue considered at every level of government, we might never decide on anything. Between all of the issues considered by local, state, and federal governments, citizens could literally spend all day, every single day voting.
• Public Involvement Would Drop: Direct democracy best serves the interest of the people when most people take part in it. As the time required for debating and voting increases, public interest and participation in the process would quickly decrease, leading to decisions that did not truly reflect the will of the majority. In the end, small groups of people—often with axes to grind—could control the government.
• One Tense Situation After Another: In any society as large and diverse as that in the United States, what is the chance of that everyone will ever happily agree with or at least peacefully accept decisions on major issues? As recent history has shown, not much. 

" A Citizen's Guide to Vermont Town Meeting ." Office of the Vermont Secretary of State, 2008.

Tridimas, George. " Constitutional Choice in Ancient Athens: The Evolution of the Frequency of Decision Making ." Constitution Political Economy , vol. 28, Sep. 2017, pp. 209-230, doi:10.1007/s10602-017-9241-2

Kaufmann, Bruno. " The Way to Modern Direct Democracy in Switzerland ." House of Switzerland. Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, 26 Apr. 2019.

• Representative Democracy: Definition, Pros, and Cons
• What Is Democracy? Definition and Examples
• Republic vs. Democracy: What Is the Difference?
• Reasons to Keep the Electoral College
• Understanding the Ballot Initiative Process
• Key Election Terms for Students
• Electoral College Pros and Cons
• What Is a Unitary State?
• What Is Bureaucracy, and Is It Good or Bad?
• What Is Public Choice Theory?
• Pros and Cons of Compulsory Voting
• What Is Patriotism? Definition, Examples, Pros and Cons
• Who Invented the Electoral College?
• Supermajority Vote in US Congress
• What Are Interest Groups? Definition and Examples
• What Is Federalism? Definition and How It Works in the US

Donate to liberties

Democracy & justice, what is direct democracy: definition, examples, pros & cons, ​what does direct democracy mean, and how does it differ from indirect democracy here’s a look at what’s good and bad about “pure democracy” and whether it could still work today., by jonathan day.

Knowledge is power. Your contribution counts.

There’s a good chance you live under some form of democracy. Nearly all Europeans do, and everyone living within the European Union lives in a democracy—a country’s institutions must guarantee democracy and the rule of law, among other things, in order to join the EU.

The form of democracy EU citizens live under is representative democracy, where we cast votes for politicians who in turn vote on what should become law. But there’s another, older form of democracy that some consider more genuine and pure. It’s called direct democracy.

Your contribution matters

Democracy gives everyone a voice, not just the rich and powerful. Help us protect it.

Help us make democracy immune to autocrats

Direct democracy means that people vote on policies and laws themselves, instead of electing politicians to do it on their behalf. This is why it’s sometimes referred to as “pure democracy.” Direct democracy could take different forms, from a system where all executive and legislative decisions are taken by direct vote of the people, or where only certain policies or legislative acts are voted on by the people.

The latter system has been the most common form of direct democracy throughout modern history, and it is considered semi-direct democracy. This is a hybrid form of governing that combines that tenets of direct democracy and representative democracy. The people choose representatives to administer day-to-day governance, but they keep the power to directly vote on important issues through binding referendum, popular initiative, revocation of mandate, and public consultations.

How does a direct democracy differ from an indirect democracy?

As mentioned above, direct democracy is when the people vote directly on laws or other policy initiatives. Indirect democracy is when the people elect representatives to make those same votes on their behalf.

What forms does direct democracy have?

We’ve already touched on semi-direct democracy, which can be viewed as a form of direct democracy, or a separate system in itself. Looking specifically at direct democracy, the two primary forms are participatory democracy and deliberative democracy.

Participatory democracy is model of democracy in which citizens have the power to make political decisions directly through their vote. And the emphasis of participatory democracy is that action—the direct participation of citizens, through voting, in determining outcomes of legislative or policy proposals.

A similar but distinct form of direct democracy is deliberative democracy. In deliberative democracy, the emphasis is placed on debate and deliberation as the key element of decision-making. Laws have legitimacy and force not only because a majority of people support them, but because they have been fully discussed and debated, with all viewpoints considered and all pros and cons weighed.

A good way to think of the difference between participatory democracy and deliberative democracy is the process. In the former, people go to the polls and vote. In a deliberative process, people would gather in an assembly of sorts, debate and discuss the issues to be voted on, and then reach a consensus decision.

Examples of direct democracy

The origin of modern democracy, at least as we commonly understand it, is the direct democratic system of Athens around 600 BCE. In this Athenian democracy, citizens didn’t choose representatives to vote on legislation on their behalf but instead voted on proposals and initiatives themselves.

Today, however, there are few, if any, true direct-democracy states. Switzerland prides itself on its system of direct democracy—the government even has a webpage to tout it—but in truth the Swiss system, at federal level, is a semi-direct democracy. Politicians are elected to handle the daily governance of the nation and make many decision on behalf of the people. Still, citizens do retain a high degree of democratic power. They can propose changes to the constitution or ask for a referendum to be held on any law proposed by the federal government or any cantonal parliament or other legislative body.

In the United States, many individual states and municipalities retain some direct democracy. In New England, for example, so-called town halls are assemblies with the members of local towns gather for deliberative, direct democratic processes to decide local laws and regulations. And in many countries, such as the United Kingdom and roughly a dozen EU states, national referendums still exist, under which citizens can vote directly on a legislative proposal, say to allow abortion or to leave the European Union.

Stay informed and make up your own mind.

Direct democracy: what are the pros and cons.

Direct democracy, or “pure democracy,” is often seen as the truest form of democracy. The people choose the laws they live under, cutting out the “middlemen” to vote on their behalf. In this way, it can be seen as inherently more virtuous than representative democracy. But that’s not to say it doesn’t have its drawbacks. So what are the main pros and cons?

-Transparency: Direct democracy is surely the most transparent form of democracy. There are no “backroom deals” made to decide the outcome or scope of legislation, because discussions and debates on important issues are held in public. And it’s the people who decide whether a proposal becomes law, and thus they bear full responsibility for the outcome.

-Accountability: Speaking of responsibility, direct democracy ensures that there is no doubt about who is accountable for the successes or failures of a countries laws or policies. Moreover, the government cannot claim to be unaware of the will of the people, and partisan lobbying and other interference in the legislative process is minimal or non-existent.

-Cooperation: Direct democracy encourages citizens to communicate and cooperate with one another, not only to consider current legislation, but also to craft legislation that best serves the most people, and thus has the best chance of winning majority support. And when people know with certainty that their voice will be considered in the process, they are far more likely to participate and cooperate with fellow citizens.

-Indecision: Simply put, there are more people now than there were when direct democratic systems existed. Many, many more. Consider the United States, with its some 350 million people. If they all had to vote on every policy initiative or legislative proposal, nothing would ever get done. It simply would not be an efficient system, and thus it could actually weaken the effectiveness of the government.

-Participation: We are busy people. We have jobs to do, families to care for, and sports teams to form unhealthy obsessions over. If we are asked to weigh in on every decision, eventually we would just lose interest. Or simply be unable to keep up with such a demand.

-Tension: Important decisions often create tension between people with opposing views. The more important the decision, the more tension. The more decisions, the more tension. Trying to implement direct democracy today could lead to even more acrimonious societies, where people are angrier and, perhaps, more violent.

In many ways, direct democracy deserves its title as the purest form of democracy. But does that mean it’s the best? There are many reasons why we should be hesitant to want to live in a true direct democracy, even despite the fact that it makes certain that our individual opinion will matter and be considered in the final outcome. Certainly, representative democracy came about because it does some things better than direct democracy. But whether we can maintain our representative democracies so that they function as they were intended to is another matter altogether.

Value knowledge by supporting Liberties All great movements begin with sharing information. Our explainer articles help you understand the most pressing human rights issues, so together we can stand up for what matters. Support us by buying one of our activist authors a cup of coffee. Add your voice to ours. Donate today.

More Stories

Civil Society Statement: Commissioner Breton Needs to Clarify Comments About the DSA Allowing for Platform Blocking

Access to Information: Definition, Importance, Expansion

What Is a Whistleblower? Is Whistleblowing Protected by Law?

As a watchdog organisation, Liberties reminds politicians that respect for human rights is non-negotiable. We're determined to keep championing your civil liberties, will you stand with us? Every donation, big or small, counts.

We’re grateful to all our supporters

Your contributions help us in the following ways

► Liberties remains independent ► It provides a stable income, enabling us to plan long-term ► We decide our mission, so we can focus on the causes that matter ► It makes us stronger and more impactful

Subscribe to stay in

You will get the latest reports before everyone else!

You can follow what we are doing for your right!

You will know about our achivements!

Show me a sample!

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

Essay on Democracy in 100, 300 and 500 Words

• Updated on  
• Jan 15, 2024

The oldest account of democracy can be traced back to 508–507 BCC Athens . Today there are over 50 different types of democracy across the world. But, what is the ideal form of democracy? Why is democracy considered the epitome of freedom and rights around the globe? Let’s explore what self-governance is and how you can write a creative and informative essay on democracy and its significance. 

Today, India is the largest democracy with a population of 1.41 billion and counting. Everyone in India above the age of 18 is given the right to vote and elect their representative. Isn’t it beautiful, when people are given the option to vote for their leader, one that understands their problems and promises to end their miseries? This is just one feature of democracy , for we have a lot of samples for you in the essay on democracy. Stay tuned!

Can you answer these questions in under 5 minutes? Take the Ultimate GK Quiz to find out!

This Blog Includes:

What is democracy , sample essay on democracy (100 words), sample essay on democracy (250 to 300 words), sample essay on democracy for upsc (500 words).

Democracy is a form of government in which the final authority to deliberate and decide the legislation for the country lies with the people, either directly or through representatives. Within a democracy, the method of decision-making, and the demarcation of citizens vary among countries. However, some fundamental principles of democracy include the rule of law, inclusivity, political deliberations, voting via elections , etc. 

Did you know: On 15th August 1947, India became the world’s largest democracy after adopting the Indian Constitution and granting fundamental rights to its citizens?

Must Explore: Human Rights Courses for Students 

Must Explore: NCERT Notes on Separation of Powers in a Democracy

Democracy where people make decisions for the country is the only known form of governance in the world that promises to inculcate principles of equality, liberty and justice. The deliberations and negotiations to form policies and make decisions for the country are the basis on which the government works, with supreme power to people to choose their representatives, delegate the country’s matters and express their dissent. The democratic system is usually of two types, the presidential system, and the parliamentary system. In India, the three pillars of democracy, namely legislature, executive and judiciary, working independently and still interconnected, along with a free press and media provide a structure for a truly functional democracy. Despite the longest-written constitution incorporating values of sovereignty, socialism, secularism etc. India, like other countries, still faces challenges like corruption, bigotry, and oppression of certain communities and thus, struggles to stay true to its democratic ideals.

Did you know: Some of the richest countries in the world are democracies?

Must Read : Consumer Rights in India

Must Read: Democracy and Diversity Class 10

As Abraham Lincoln once said, “democracy is the government of the people, by the people and for the people.” There is undeniably no doubt that the core of democracies lies in making people the ultimate decision-makers. With time, the simple definition of democracy has evolved to include other principles like equality, political accountability, rights of the citizens and to an extent, values of liberty and justice. Across the globe, representative democracies are widely prevalent, however, there is a major variation in how democracies are practised. The major two types of representative democracy are presidential and parliamentary forms of democracy. Moreover, not all those who present themselves as a democratic republic follow its values.

Many countries have legally deprived some communities of living with dignity and protecting their liberty, or are practising authoritarian rule through majoritarianism or populist leaders. Despite this, one of the things that are central and basic to all is the practice of elections and voting. However, even in such a case, the principles of universal adult franchise and the practice of free and fair elections are theoretically essential but very limited in practice, for a democracy. Unlike several other nations, India is still, at least constitutionally and principally, a practitioner of an ideal democracy.

With our three organs of the government, namely legislative, executive and judiciary, the constitutional rights to citizens, a multiparty system, laws to curb discrimination and spread the virtues of equality, protection to minorities, and a space for people to discuss, debate and dissent, India has shown a commitment towards democratic values. In recent times, with challenges to freedom of speech, rights of minority groups and a conundrum between the protection of diversity and unification of the country, the debate about the preservation of democracy has become vital to public discussion.

Did you know: In countries like Brazil, Scotland, Switzerland, Argentina, and Austria the minimum voting age is 16 years?

Also Read: Difference Between Democracy and Dictatorship

Democracy originated from the Greek word dēmokratiā , with dēmos ‘people’ and Kratos ‘rule.’ For the first time, the term appeared in the 5th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in Greek city-states, notably Classical Athens, to mean “rule of the people.” It now refers to a form of governance where the people have the right to participate in the decision-making of the country. Majorly, it is either a direct democracy where citizens deliberate and make legislation while in a representative democracy, they choose government officials on their behalf, like in a parliamentary or presidential democracy.

The presidential system (like in the USA) has the President as the head of the country and the government, while the parliamentary system (like in the UK and India) has both a Prime Minister who derives its legitimacy from a parliament and even a nominal head like a monarch or a President.

The notions and principle frameworks of democracy have evolved with time. At the core, lies the idea of political discussions and negotiations. In contrast to its alternatives like monarchy, anarchy, oligarchy etc., it is the one with the most liberty to incorporate diversity. The ideas of equality, political representation to all, active public participation, the inclusion of dissent, and most importantly, the authority to the law by all make it an attractive option for citizens to prefer, and countries to follow.

The largest democracy in the world, India with the lengthiest constitution has tried and to an extent, successfully achieved incorporating the framework to be a functional democracy. It is a parliamentary democratic republic where the President is head of the state and the Prime minister is head of the government. It works on the functioning of three bodies, namely legislative, executive, and judiciary. By including the principles of a sovereign, socialist, secular and democratic republic, and undertaking the guidelines to establish equality, liberty and justice, in the preamble itself, India shows true dedication to achieving the ideal.

It has formed a structure that allows people to enjoy their rights, fight against discrimination or any other form of suppression, and protect their rights as well. The ban on all and any form of discrimination, an independent judiciary, governmental accountability to its citizens, freedom of media and press, and secular values are some common values shared by all types of democracies.

Across the world, countries have tried rooting their constitution with the principles of democracy. However, the reality is different. Even though elections are conducted everywhere, mostly, they lack freedom of choice and fairness. Even in the world’s greatest democracies, there are challenges like political instability, suppression of dissent, corruption , and power dynamics polluting the political sphere and making it unjust for the citizens. Despite the consensus on democracy as the best form of government, the journey to achieve true democracy is both painstaking and tiresome. 

Did you know: Countries like Singapore, Peru, and Brazil have compulsory voting?

Must Read: Democracy and Diversity Class 10 Notes

Democracy is a process through which the government of a country is elected by and for the people.

Yes, India is a democratic country and also holds the title of the world’s largest democracy.

Direct and Representative Democracy are the two major types of Democracy.

Related Articles

Hope you learned from our essay on democracy! For more exciting articles related to writing and education, follow Leverage Edu .

Sonal is a creative, enthusiastic writer and editor who has worked extensively for the Study Abroad domain. She splits her time between shooting fun insta reels and learning new tools for content marketing. If she is missing from her desk, you can find her with a group of people cracking silly jokes or petting neighbourhood dogs.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Very helpful essay

Thanks for your valuable feedback

Thank you so much for informing this much about democracy

Leaving already?

8 Universities with higher ROI than IITs and IIMs

Grab this one-time opportunity to download this ebook

Connect With Us

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

September 2024

January 2025

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

‘America Is a Republic, Not a Democracy’ Is a Dangerous—And Wrong—Argument

Enabling sustained minority rule at the national level is not a feature of our constitutional design, but a perversion of it.

Dependent on a minority of the population to hold national power, Republicans such as Senator Mike Lee of Utah have taken to reminding the public that “we’re not a democracy.” It is quaint that so many Republicans, embracing a president who routinely tramples constitutional norms, have suddenly found their voice in pointing out that, formally, the country is a republic. There is some truth to this insistence. But it is mostly disingenuous. The Constitution was meant to foster a complex form of majority rule, not enable minority rule.

The founding generation was deeply skeptical of what it called “pure” democracy and defended the American experiment as “wholly republican.” To take this as a rejection of democracy misses how the idea of government by the people, including both a democracy and a republic, was understood when the Constitution was drafted and ratified. It misses, too, how we understand the idea of democracy today.

George Packer: Republicans are suddenly afraid of democracy

When founding thinkers such as James Madison spoke of democracy, they were usually referring to direct democracy, what Madison frequently labeled “pure” democracy. Madison made the distinction between a republic and a direct democracy exquisitely clear in “ Federalist No. 14 ”: “In a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region.” Both a democracy and a republic were popular forms of government: Each drew its legitimacy from the people and depended on rule by the people. The crucial difference was that a republic relied on representation, while in a “pure” democracy, the people represented themselves.

At the time of the founding, a narrow vision of the people prevailed. Black people were largely excluded from the terms of citizenship, and slavery was a reality, even when frowned upon, that existed alongside an insistence on self-government. What this generation considered either a democracy or a republic is troublesome to us insofar as it largely granted only white men the full rights of citizens, albeit with some exceptions. America could not be considered a truly popular government until the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which commanded equal citizenship for Black Americans. Yet this triumph was rooted in the founding generation’s insistence on what we would come to call democracy.

The history of democracy as grasped by the Founders, drawn largely from the ancient world, revealed that overbearing majorities could all too easily lend themselves to mob rule, dominating minorities and trampling individual rights. Democracy was also susceptible to demagogues—men of “factious tempers” and “sinister designs,” as Madison put it in “Federalist No. 10”—who relied on “vicious arts” to betray the interests of the people. Madison nevertheless sought to defend popular government—the rule of the many—rather than retreat to the rule of the few.

American constitutional design can best be understood as an effort to establish a sober form of democracy. It did so by embracing representation, the separation of powers, checks and balances, and the protection of individual rights—all concepts that were unknown in the ancient world where democracy had earned its poor reputation.

In “Federalist No. 10” and “Federalist No. 51,” the seminal papers, Madison argued that a large republic with a diversity of interests capped by the separation of powers and checks and balances would help provide the solution to the ills of popular government. In a large and diverse society, populist passions are likely to dissipate, as no single group can easily dominate. If such intemperate passions come from a minority of the population, the “ republican principle ,” by which Madison meant majority rule , will allow the defeat of “ sinister views by regular vote .” More problematic are passionate groups that come together as a majority. The large republic with a diversity of interests makes this unlikely, particularly when its separation of powers works to filter and tame such passions by incentivizing the development of complex democratic majorities : “In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good.” Madison had previewed this argument at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 using the term democracy , arguing that a diversity of interests was “the only defense against the inconveniences of democracy consistent with the democratic form of government.”

Jeffrey Rosen: America is living James Madison’s nightmare

Yet while dependent on the people, the Constitution did not embrace simple majoritarian democracy. The states, with unequal populations, got equal representation in the Senate. The Electoral College also gave the states weight as states in selecting the president. But the centrality of states, a concession to political reality, was balanced by the House of Representatives, where the principle of representation by population prevailed, and which would make up the overwhelming number of electoral votes when selecting a president.

But none of this justified minority rule, which was at odds with the “republican principle.” Madison’s design remained one of popular government precisely because it would require the building of political majorities over time. As Madison argued in “ Federalist No. 63, ” “The cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers.”

Alexander Hamilton, one of Madison’s co-authors of The Federalist Papers , echoed this argument. Hamilton made the case for popular government and even called it democracy: “A representative democracy, where the right of election is well secured and regulated & the exercise of the legislative, executive and judiciary authorities, is vested in select persons, chosen really and not nominally by the people, will in my opinion be most likely to be happy, regular and durable.”

The American experiment, as advanced by Hamilton and Madison, sought to redeem the cause of popular government against its checkered history. Given the success of the experiment by the standards of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, we would come to use the term democracy as a stand-in for representative democracy, as distinct from direct democracy.

Consider that President Abraham Lincoln, facing a civil war, which he termed the great test of popular government, used constitutional republic and democracy synonymously, eloquently casting the American experiment as government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And whatever the complexities of American constitutional design, Lincoln insisted , “the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible.” Indeed, Lincoln offered a definition of popular government that can guide our understanding of a democracy—or a republic—today: “A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks, and limitations, and always changing easily, with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people.”

The greatest shortcoming of the American experiment was its limited vision of the people, which excluded Black people, women, and others from meaningful citizenship, diminishing popular government’s cause. According to Lincoln, extending meaningful citizenship so that “all should have an equal chance” was the basis on which the country could be “saved.” The expansion of we the people was behind the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments ratified in the wake of the Civil War. The Fourteenth recognized that all persons born in the U.S. were citizens of the country and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The Fifteenth secured the vote for Black men. Subsequent amendments, the Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth, granted women the right to vote, prohibited poll taxes in national elections, and lowered the voting age to 18. Progress has been slow— and s ometimes halted, as is evident from current efforts to limit voting rights —and the country has struggled to become the democratic republic first set in motion two centuries ago. At the same time, it has also sought to find the right republican constraints on the evolving body of citizens, so that majority rule—but not factious tempers—can prevail.

Adam Serwer: The Supreme Court is helping Republicans rig elections

Perhaps the most significant stumbling block has been the states themselves. In the 1790 census, taken shortly after the Constitution was ratified, America’s largest state, Virginia, was roughly 13 times larger than its smallest state, Delaware. Today, California is roughly 78 times larger than Wyoming. This sort of disparity has deeply shaped the Senate, which gives a minority of the population a disproportionate influence on national policy choices. Similarly, in the Electoral College, small states get a disproportionate say on who becomes president. Each of California’s electoral votes is estimated to represent 700,000-plus people, while one of Wyoming’s speaks for just under 200,000 people.

Subsequent to 1988, the Republican presidential candidate has prevailed in the Electoral College in three out of seven elections, but won the popular vote only once (2004). If President Trump is reelected, it will almost certainly be because he once again prevailed in the Electoral College while losing the popular vote. If this were to occur, he would be the only two-term president to never win a plurality of the popular vote. In 2020, Trump is the first candidate in American history to campaign for the presidency without making any effort to win the popular vote, appealing only to the people who will deliver him an Electoral College win. If the polls are any indication, more Americans may vote for Vice President Biden than have ever voted for a presidential candidate, and he could still lose the presidency. In the past, losing the popular vote while winning the Electoral College was rare. Given current trends, minority rule could become routine. Many Republicans are actively embracing this position with the insistence that we are, after all, a republic, not a democracy.

They have also dispensed with the notion of building democratic majorities to govern, making no effort on health care, immigration, or a crucial second round of economic relief in the face of COVID-19. Instead, revealing contempt for the democratic norms they insisted on when President Barack Obama sought to fill a vacant Supreme Court seat, Republicans in the Senate have brazenly wielded their power to entrench a Republican majority on the Supreme Court by rushing to confirm Justice Amy Coney Barrett. The Senate Judiciary Committee vote to approve Barrett also illuminates the disparity in popular representation: The 12 Republican senators who voted to approve of Barrett’s nomination represented 9 million fewer people than the 10 Democratic senators who chose not to vote. Similarly, the 52 Republican senators who voted to confirm Barrett represented 17 million fewer people than the 48 senators who voted against her. And the Court Barrett is joining, made up of six Republican appointees (half of whom were appointed by a president who lost the popular vote) to three Democratic appointees, has been quite skeptical of voting rights—a severe blow to the “democracy” part of a democratic republic.  In 2013’s Shelby County v. Holder , the Court struck down a section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that allowed the federal government to preempt changes in voting regulations from states with a history of racial discrimination.

As Adam Serwer recently wrote in these pages , “ Shelby County ushered in a new era of experimentation among Republican politicians in restricting the electorate, often along racial lines.” Republicans are eager to shrink the electorate. Ostensibly seeking to prevent voting fraud, which studies have continually shown is a nonexistent problem, Republicans support efforts to make voting more difficult—especially for minorities, who do not tend to vote Republican. The Republican governor of Texas, in the midst of a pandemic when more people are voting by mail, limited the number of drop-off locations for absentee ballots to one per county. Loving, with a population of 169, has one drop-off location; Harris, with a population of 4.7 million (majority nonwhite), also has one drop-off location. States controlled by Republicans, such as Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas, have also closed polling places, making voters in predominantly minority communities stand in line for hours to cast their ballot.

Who counts as a full and equal citizen—as part of we the people —has shrunk in the Republican vision. Arguing against statehood for the District of Columbia, which has 200,000 more people than the state of Wyoming, Senator Tom Cotton from Arkansas said Wyoming is entitled to representation because it is “a well-rounded working-class state.” It is also overwhelmingly white. In contrast, D.C. is 50 percent nonwhite.

High-minded claims that we are not a democracy surreptitiously fuse republic with minority rule rather than popular government. Enabling sustained minority rule at the national level is not a feature of our constitutional design, but a perversion of it. Routine minority rule is neither desirable nor sustainable, and makes it difficult to characterize the country as either a democracy or a republic. We should see this as a constitutional failure demanding constitutional reform.

This story is part of the project “ The Battle for the Constitution ,” in partnership with the National Constitution Center .

• Environment
• Information Science
• Social Issues
• Argumentative
• Cause and Effect
• Classification
• Compare and Contrast
• Descriptive
• Exemplification
• Informative
• Controversial
• Exploratory
• What Is an Essay
• Length of an Essay
• Generate Ideas
• Types of Essays
• Structuring an Essay
• Outline For Essay
• Essay Introduction
• Thesis Statement
• Body of an Essay
• Writing a Conclusion
• Essay Writing Tips
• Drafting an Essay
• Revision Process
• Fix a Broken Essay
• Format of an Essay
• Essay Examples
• Essay Checklist
• Essay Writing Service
• Pay for Research Paper
• Write My Research Paper
• Write My Essay
• Custom Essay Writing Service
• Admission Essay Writing Service
• Pay for Essay
• Academic Ghostwriting
• Write My Book Report
• Case Study Writing Service
• Dissertation Writing Service
• Coursework Writing Service
• Lab Report Writing Service
• Do My Assignment
• Buy College Papers
• Capstone Project Writing Service
• Buy Research Paper
• Custom Essays for Sale

Can’t find a perfect paper?

• Free Essay Samples
• Political Science

Direct democracy

Updated 13 January 2022

Subject Political Science

Downloads 60

Category Government ,  Sociology

Topic Democracy ,  Political Culture ,  Society

Direct Democracy in California

Direct democracy is often referred to as pure democracy, and it is a type of democracy in which society decides policy and laws set in effect by the government instead of legislators elected by the citizens (Hussey 256). In a real direct democracy, the citizens of a national vote on all the laws, bills, and court verdicts. Democracy means that there is transparency between the government and the public, as well as greater government accountability. In the state of California, the system of direct democracy began because many Californians were not satisfied with the state government. It is because the government was controlled by wealthy officials who made laws to help them in the businesses instead of the people they represented (Hussey 256).

Initiatives and Referendums

Direct democracy has a system of initiative and referendums. An initiative is merely a suggestion for a fresh law. If a good number of citizens sign a petition, the proposals then become a proposition and are added to a ballot after which the residents will vote whether they need the policies to turn into regulations (Hussey 257). Similarly, referendum consents the people to poll for or contrary to a rule that has been passed by a state assembly. Any citizen of California is authorized to compose a petition to suggest a new ruling. If a desirable number signs the petition, then it is the obligation of the government to put the proposition on the ballot and give the citizens an opportunity to vote. To bring an initiative or referendum to vote, it must have more than 900,000 votes. California was the first state to permit the use of medicinal marijuana after the implementation of Proposition 215 over twenty years ago. In 2008, the state of California voted on Proposition 8 that was focusing on the marriage between the same sexes (Hussey 258).

The Policy Making Process of the Federal Government

Public policy is the actions undertaken by the administration including its decisions that are aimed to solve issues to increase the worth of life of its residents (Birkland). Federal strategies are ratified at the federal level to regulate businesses and industries to protect citizens in the country and outside the country (Birkland). A system put in place by an administration undergoes numerous phases starting from the commencement to the conclusion. The steps of the policy making process of the federal government include:

Agenda Building

Before the creation of a system, a challenge must be present and called to the attention of the federal administration (Birkland). For instance, unlawful immigration has been taking place for several years, but it was not up to the a few years ago that most people began considering it a grave issue that necessitated augmented government act. Another case in point is criminality. The people of America tolerate evil to a certain level, and when the crime rises dramatically, it becomes a concern of policy makers (Birkland).

Formulation and Adoption

The process involves initiating a method to resolving a problem. Congress, the judiciary, executive division and the groups that are interested can participate in the process. The head of state might have one tactic to an individual issue, and the opposition party might have another method (Kingdon).

Implementation

The process of application is often undertaken by associations different from those that framed and adopted it. A decree is there to provide a comprehensive framework of a rule. For instance, Assembly may order better water quality, but it is the obligation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to offer facts of required principles and measures (Kingdon).

Evaluation and Termination

The process of the assessment includes defining how well a rule is functioning. Individuals in the government and outside the regime use cost benefit scrutiny to find the answer. According to history, once the policies have implemented, their termination is often difficult. When the plans are concluded, it is because they became superseded or lost interest among the interest groups that proposed it in the first place (Kingdon).

Impact of Proposition 13 on Education in California

Before 1978, when institutes required cash to hire scholars, pay for schoolrooms and provisions, they only looked on the local taxpayer for cash in the form of assets duties (Hoene 53). However, after 1978, that could not be done anymore. Beforehand Proposition 13, the learning institutions in California state $9 billion budget. After the proposal, they lost $3 billion which is a third of the budget. The majority of funding for schools comes from the state from a series of ballot initiatives. It is evident that the last time the state of California was at the topmost of national ranking in 1965 when it ranked 5th (Hoene 57). In 1978 the year Proposition 13 approved, the state was ranked 14th out of 50. The following year, the state was ranked the 22nd place, and it fell below the nationwide average in 1988 never to recover again. The drop in the national ranking is connected to the passage of Proposition 13 in that revenue limits were placed on schools and indeed condensed the pool of cash that was offered to schools (Hoene 64). It is because the state relies on sales tax and income tax hence in case of recession like the one that is currently witnessed, the state is left with less money, and in turn, they are compelled to give the schools less money. Therefore, it indicates that proposition should be repealed since it is obvious it has become obsolete concerning the current performance of the schools and the economic situation of the country (Hoene 70).

Economic Recession and Policy Response

The decline of the economy for at least six months in a row is what is called the economic recession. It means there is a drop in various economic indicators such as GDP, income employment, retail sales, and manufacturing. Solving these issues calls for some economic policies such as the Keynesian solution to the recession and the role of the Federal Reserve Bank to be put into consideration.

Keynesian Solution

According to Keynesians, the government is supposed to spend more and tax less during bad economic times (Dorman 269). Through this, the government puts money in the hands of the consumers. It because recession and depression are caused by lack of enough aggregate demand (AD) and increasing the AD is likely to get the economy out of the slump down. For instance, the government pays people to things like constructing roads and the money that is spent by the government will multiply and have a larger impact on the level of the AD (Dorman 272). For example, if the government spends $200 million on road construction, the people that the money falls into their hands will save some amount and will be compelled to pay most of it. Maybe the businesses will have gotten $90 million if people kept 10%. The company will save some of that but will also be compelled to spend more. The process keeps recurring over and over, and the first government spending is multiplied several times. The approach makes the AD curve shift to the right, and the GDP in turn rises (Dorman 283).

Role of Federal Reserve Bank

It is the obligation of the Federal Reserve Bank to respond to the economic unrest in the country since they were mandated by the Congress in 1913 to offer the nation with a safer and unwavering monetary structure (Mishkin 118). The FED responds during the economic crisis by implementing some programs that aim to backing the liquidity of monetary organizations and foster better settings in monetary markets. The FED includes substantial purchases of longer term securities that seek to put down stress on longer term interest charges and to simplify economic conditions overall (Mishkin 123). During the recession, the bank is supposed to provide short-term liquidity to banking institutions and other relevant financial organizations. Due to the reason that the bank funding markets are a global scale affair, the Federal Reserve likewise approves mutual currency swap pacts with different overseas central banks. Similarly, the Reserve Bank provides liquidity directly to investors and borrowers in credit markets that are critical (Mishkin 125).

Mistakes of the Federal Reserve Bank

Despite these policies that the Federal Reserve put in place during the economic recession, it is important to point out errors that they made in the past concerning the depression (Meltzer). Most people tend to point fingers on the housing market but in the real sense, it is due to misguided monetary policies of the Federal Reserve. The Fed concentrated on resolving the accommodation crisis as the economy began to fall in 2008 not knowing that the crisis was merely a disruption. One cannot deny that the housing crisis on its own might have instigated a weak downturn (Meltzer). However, the Fed bailed out the banks at risk of bad mortgages ignoring the cause of the real downturn. A fall in GDP that counts for the total worth of properties and services in the country failed to be put into consideration by the Reserve Bank while going assessing inflation. The Fed has the mandate to control NGDP through its financial rules, and it was supposed to lower the interest rates rapidly instantly. Besides, it should have increased the supply of money with the help of quantitative easing. Instead of doing that, the Fed kept interest rates too high for long hence triggering the GDP even to fall further (Meltzer).

Works Cited:

Birkland, Thomas A. "An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts and models of public policy making." Routledge, 2014. Dorman, Peter. "Keynesian Fiscal Policy." Macroeconomics. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2014. 267-291. Hussey, Wesley. "Direct Democracy in California." (2008): 256-258. Hoene, Christopher. "Fiscal Structure and the Post-Proposition 13 Fiscal Regime in California's Cities." Public Budgeting & Finance 24.4 (2004): 51-72. Kingdon, John W. "Agendas, alternatives, and public policies." Longman Pub Group, 2003. Mishkin, Frederic S. "Why the Federal Reserve should adopt inflation targeting." International Finance 7.1 (2004): 117-127. Meltzer, Allan H. "A History of the Federal Reserve, Volume 2." University of Chicago Press, 2010.

Deadline is approaching?

Wait no more. Let us write you an essay from scratch

Related Essays

Related topics.

Find Out the Cost of Your Paper

Type your email

By clicking “Submit”, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy policy. Sometimes you will receive account related emails.

EssayEmpire

Direct democracy essay.

This example Direct Democracy Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.

The term democracy is derived from two Greek words (de.ˆmos and kratein) meaning “power of the people.” The most common form of democracy is an indirect democracy or republic in which unassembled voters are confined to examining the qualifications of candidates and casting ballots to elect officers to represent the citizenry, and occasionally to decide referendums questions. Direct democracy is viewed in theory as the most democratic form, as voters in an assembly make all political decisions.

Direct democracy dates to the age of Pericles in fifth century BCE Athens in present-day Greece. A number of philosophers at the time, expressed fear that a citizen legislative assembly would develop into mob rule, and some, such as Plato, favored rule by philosophers. In contrast, Pericles viewed the citizen assembly as limiting the power of the government, thereby providing for individual freedoms.

Direct democracy was revived in the Landsgemeinde in Canton Appenzell in Switzerland in 1378. Subsequently, the canton split into two half-cantons. Today, this form of direct democracy is found only in the Swiss canton of Glarus, the half-canton of Appenzell Innerrhoden, and in New England open town meetings and school district meetings in the United States. The early Athens meetings occurred in a sovereign city-state in contrast to the meetings in Swiss cantons and contemporary New England towns and districts with open meetings.

An important form of direct democracy employed in many nations in modern times is the referendum, which allows unassembled voters to make certain political decisions and assumes many forms. In the Republic of Ireland, for example, the national parliament or the president, with the approval of the Council of State, may place questions on the referendum ballot. In other places, such as the State of New York, certain questions automatically appear on the ballot periodically in accordance with constitutional requirements. Voters in certain jurisdictions in Switzerland, in twenty-four U.S. states, and in numerous municipal governments in the United States may use initiative petitions to place on the referendum ballot policy propositions and proposals to repeal recently enacted laws. Eighteen state constitutions and numerous local government charters in the United States authorize voters to place proposals to remove elected officers from office on the referendum ballot.

The New England Town Meeting

The New England Town meeting, a form of decision making by assembled voters, serves as the hallmark of democracy in the United States and dates to the early 1630s, following the settlement of the present-day Boston area by the Massachusetts Bay Company, a joint stock commercial company chartered by the British Crown in 1629.

The Puritans, persons of wealth who sought to purify the Church of England of Roman Catholic features, emigrated to Massachusetts Bay to establish a new commonwealth. The colony was governed in accordance with the Crown charter providing for a governor, deputy governor, and eighteen assistants empowered to hold a General Court, admit freemen, elect officers, and enact laws governing the colony. Freemen were the original male settlers and later included men admitted as freemen by the General Court, provided they were members of the church (Congregational).They constituted a small percentage of the adult male population. The charter contains no provision for town meetings, and the General Court did not authorize the first ones.

A folkmoot, an extralegal and informal assemblage of freemen, made decisions on town matters including construction of a church, employment of a minister, admission of new residents, land divisions, and other essential matters. This early noninstitutionalized stage of town meeting government functioned without elected town officers, and meetings were held as needed.

Residents soon discovered the town meeting needed to be supplemented by officers. The emergence of selectmen, the plural executive, and other officers resulted in less-frequent town meetings, and in most towns only an annual meeting was held to elect officers, levy taxes and appropriate funds, and act on proposed bylaws.

Theories Of Origin

Late nineteenth-century historians engaged in disputes relative to whether the Massachusetts Bay town was indigenous in origin, a descendant of the ancient Anglo-Saxon-tun, or derived from English institutions adapted to conditions in the New World. Evidence is lacking to support the theory that the town developed spontaneously as a new political institution. There are certain similarities between a town meeting and the primordial field meeting of farmers in southern Germany to distribute land and regulate crops with village elders as the forerunners of the town constable and selectmen. Stronger evidence supports the third theory, as there are a number of similarities between town meeting government and churches in England, including vestry meetings of parishioners to make decisions relative to supporting the church and to elect churchwardens, who were in charge of church property. The Charlestown records of 1630 note the Court of Assistants appointed justices of the peace with “like power that justices of the peace hath in England.” Direct democracy in the form of the town meeting emerged shortly after the founding of the first towns.

Procedures Of Open Town Meetings

Today, the selectpersons call the annual and special town meetings by issuing a warrant, a fixed agenda, warning citizens a town meeting will be held on a specified date and hour to act upon warrant articles. Voters by petition may add articles to the warrant, elect town officers, and act on articles. The moderator, who may be elected at the start of the meeting or for a term of one to three years, is in charge of proceedings, decides points of law, and declares all votes. The moderator’s duties are established by statute and bylaws. The latter may include a quorum requirement.

Articles normally are considered in the order listed in the warrant. A motion is made and seconded prior to debate. Amendments to articles may be proposed, seconded, and decided. The finance committee and the planning board play important roles in providing guidance to attendees.

Attendance depends in part on the presence of controversial warrant articles and in part on the size of the town, with a generally inverse relationship between the attendance percentage and the population size. There has been a secular decline in attendance by registered voters in all but the very small towns, and participation may be lower than 10 percent in towns with large populations. This decline has led a number of the larger towns, commencing in Boston in 1822, to adopt city charters or modify the town meeting.

Modifications

The open town meeting generally is entrenched in small towns, but since 1822 has been replaced by a city charter, a town charter providing for a mayor and a council, a representative town meeting (RTM) or limited town meeting, or a referendum town meeting when the population has reached a point that makes it impossible to conduct an efficient town meeting.

Brookline, Massachusetts, had experienced a large increase in population by the early part of the twentieth century that created problems in conducting meetings, yet the town desired to keep the meeting format. Alfred D. Chandler developed the RTM and persuaded the General Court to authorize its adoption by Brookline voters in 1915. The only change in the traditional meeting is the confining of the right to vote at town meetings to elected town meeting members; all other citizens may attend and speak. Forty-one other Massachusetts towns, nine Connecticut towns, one town in Maine, and one town in Vermont have adopted the RTM.

Sixty-eight Vermont and fifty-three New Hampshire towns have adopted the referendum town meeting, where voters go to the polls to act on the warrant. In theory, this meeting type should increase voter participation, but the change has increased voter participation only to a limited extent in most towns. Voter turnout averages approximately 29 percent.

The Referendum

The referendum activates the key of democratic theory—that sovereign authority resides in the unassembled electorate. The referendum dates to the Landsgemeinde in Switzerland in the fifteenth century, and it allows national, state, regional, and local voters to provide advice to officers or to make policy decisions at the polls. The referendum in the United States can be viewed as an extension of the town meeting and was first employed in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1640. Today, the referendum is used in many nations to amend the national constitution and regional or state constitutions in federal nations, and to make certain other decisions, such as whether the Republic of Ireland should ratify a European Union treaty and whether the term limit on the office of president of Venezuela should be removed. Some parliamentary democracies decided all decisions should to be made by the government (cabinet). The United Kingdom historically followed this policy, but more recently it has allowed referendums in Scotland and Wales.

Referendum questions may be placed on the general election ballot or on a special election ballot (1) by the legislature, (2) automatically at periodic specified times, and (3) by the initiative that permits the electorate by petition to place a question on the ballot. The recall, a type of referendum, allows voters by petition to place on the ballot the question of the removal from office of an elected officer prior to the expiration of the term of office.

Referendums are classified as follows:

• A constitutional referendum involves a new constitution or an amendment.
• A statutory referendum involves a proposed law.
• An acceptance referendum allows local government voters to decide whether to adopt a state law.
• An automatic referendum question appears on the referendum ballot at specific times.
• A mandatory referendum must be held to initiate an action such as the borrowing of funds.
• A market basket referendum provides voters with a choice of one of several local government charters.
• An opt-out referendum allows local voters to opt out of a state law.
• A protest referendum authorizes voters by petition to suspend a recently enacted law until a referendum is held on the question of its repeal.

Proponents of referendums are convinced the voters will make superior decisions on issues (compared to a legislature beholden to special interests), facilitate governmental reform, make elected officers more responsive to the wishes of the people, promote voter interest in public affairs by reducing alienation, and educate citizens. Opponents argue that referendums weaken representative democracy and may lead to tyranny of the majority. According to the opponents, problems are as follows:

• Many voters are uninformed and overburdened by the number of questions and officers to be elected.
• The process may produce a long ballot and voter fatigue.
• A small minority often decides the issue.
• Special interest groups can repeal laws.
• Innovative leaders are discouraged from seeking election, because their decisions can be overturned readily by referendums where the initiative and protest referendum are available.

The weight of the evidence favors the referendum. There is a general agreement that proposed constitutional and local government charter changes should be subject to the sovereign will of the people, but there are exceptions as noted above. Although the initiative, the protest referendum, and the recall have been controversial, it is apparent that, lacking such devices, many reforms would not have been adopted; many unpopular laws would have remained on the statute books; and a significant number of elected officers guilty of malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance would have remained in office.

The process of enacting important laws should reflect the views of citizens, interest groups, elected representatives, and bureaucrats. The referendum actualizes the views of the citizens, fulfilling a need for a policy-making theory inclusive of elements of the theories of representative democracy and direct democracy.

Direct Democracy

Plato’s fears have not materialized, but citizen apathy results in the town meeting becoming a de facto representative democracy with attendees casting ballots representing nonvoters. Town meeting participants, with the exception of very small towns, are a minority of the voters. Nevertheless the meeting, based upon equality and openness, welcomes all citizens, scrutinizes town administrators, and has a high rate of participation when controversial articles appear in the warrant. The meeting has its shortcomings, but voter participation compares favorably with participation in city council elections, and the quality of its decisions is as high as the quality of city council decisions.

A similar criticism is leveled at the referendum, as a minority of the voters may cast ballots, and participation is dependent upon the degree of controversy involving the question.

Bibliography:

• Adams, Charles Francis, et al. The Genesis of the Massachusetts Towns, and the Development of Town Meeting Government. Cambridge, Mass.: John Wilson and Son, 1892.
• Adams, Herbert B. The Germanic Origin of New England Towns. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1892.
• Boulton, Geoffrey. A Handbook for Town Moderators, 2nd ed. Boston: Massachusetts Federation of Taxpayers Associations, 1954.
• Bryan, Frank M. Real Democracy: The New England Town Meeting and How It Works. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004.
• Gould, John. New England Town Meeting: Safeguard of Democracy. Brattleboro, Vt.: Stephen Daye Press, 1940.
• Guidebook to Direct Democracy in Switzerland and Beyond. Amsterdam: Initiative and Referendum Institute Europe, 2005.
• Haller,William, Jr. The Puritan Town Planting in New England Colonial Development 1630–1660. New York: Columbia University Press, 1951.
• Hansen, Mogens H. The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991.
• Kagan, Donald. Pericles of Athens and the Birth of Democracy. New York: Free Press, 1991.
• Mansbridge, Jane J. Beyond Adversary Democracy. New York: Basic Books, 1980.
• Munro,William B. The Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. New York: D. Appleton, 1912.
• Powell, Sumner C. Puritan Village: The Formation of a New England Town. Middletown, Conn.:Wesleyan University Press, 1963.
• Shurtleff, Nathan B., ed. Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay in New England. Boston:William White, 1853.
• Sinclair, R. K. Democracy and Participation in Athens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
• Usher, Roland G. The Pilgrims and their History. New York: Macmillan, 1918.
• Worcester, Alfred. The Origin of the New England Town Meeting. Waltham Mass.:Waltham Historical Society, 1925.
• Zimmerman, Joseph F. The Massachusetts Town Meeting: A Tenacious Institution. Albany, N.Y.: Graduate School of Public Affairs, SUNY, 1967.
• The New England Town Meeting: Democracy in Action. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1999.
• How to Write a Political Science Essay
• Political Science Essay Topics
• Political Science Essay Examples

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

Special offer!

GET 10% OFF WITH  24START  DISCOUNT CODE

Related posts.

Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Our support team will be more than willing to assist you.

Andersen, Jung & Co. is a San Francisco based, full-service real estate firm providing customized concierge-level services to its clients. We work to help our residential clients find their new home and our commercial clients to find and optimize each new investment property through our real estate and property management services.

Bennie Hawra

Final Paper

How do i select the most appropriate writer to write my essay.

The second you place your "write an essay for me" request, numerous writers will be bidding on your work. It is up to you to choose the right specialist for your task. Make an educated choice by reading their bios, analyzing their order stats, and looking over their reviews. Our essay writers are required to identify their areas of interest so you know which professional has the most up-to-date knowledge in your field. If you are thinking "I want a real pro to write essay for me" then you've come to the right place.