What are your thoughts on direct democracy?

Question

Working on the hypothetical premise it was thechnacly possible.I hear a lot of people here in Europe and American friends online,and posts on this board say the same thing.
We don't vote,politicians just want to be elected,then they do whatever they want.They feel excluded form the political process
I think we,people with an interest in politics,can all agree the more participation the better regardless where we stand on the issues.
I see upsides and downsides to direct democracy,what are your thoughts?Any other idea's to get more people untested in politics are also appreciated.

I mean direct as in more referenda and possibly(note not promoting this,just asking the opinion)one very crusial deecissions a vote by all people instead of only by their representatives,through the internet for example.
I also read about candidates this election who would hold online referenda on any legislation they would vote for or against.

I really want to thank everyone who answered this question.
Very good answers all around

Answer 1

I think it is a horrible idea. The general population is far to ignorant to make informed decisions. Note that I'm not calling people stupid, just ignorant, which can be fixed if they are willing to take the time to educate themselves.

A quick example: I once saw a question on Y! Answers if Bill Clinton was impeached. It was not a partisan question, just a question of historical fact, whether it happened or not. At least 40% of the answers said "no, he wasn't". (which is wrong, he was impeached) Obviously, this is not a scientific poll, but you can see my point that many people are ignorant of major political events as little as 8 years ago.

Look at the number of TV shows (like Leno) that have segments where they ask college graduates simple questions about our country (who is the current president, who was the first president, how many states are there, etc.) and how many people don't know the answers.

Theoretically, with an educated population, direct democracy would be great. Unfortunately, our population is not educated, never will be enough to responsibly participate in a direct democracy. It sounds nice in theory, but reality makes it a very bad idea.


...a quick amendment...
I think it could work, even with an uneducated population on the following conditions: each voter must first pass a test before they are allowed to vote. The test would not have any opinions, just facts about how our government works and the current issues. The other condition would be that everything would require a super majority to pass, something like 75% or 80%. This would prevent most special interest abuse because only things that the vast majority of people agree on get passed.

Answer 2

I'm not a fan of the idea. There are too many issues across a very large country that every person cannot be expected to keep apprised of. And as our forefathers feared, direct democracy would lead to faction because you would have special interest groups that sway the votes of the uninformed masses using propaganda. They do that now, but it would be much worse in a direct democracy.

Answer 3

Majority rule & control by the legal citizens, yes amend the constitution Stripping away the power from Congress. Representative government will never truly serve you and your family as good as direct participation. Their role should be eliminated or reduced if absolutely needed to true public service subjected to immediate loss of job if found guilty of violations in code of ethics, Late for work not performing public service etc. Oh yeah answer the dam phone instead of hide-in-seek or call someone else who cares etc.

Answer 4

the element of democracy is to evade tyranny. This removes the concentration of ability in a small team of people. Tyranny of the majority is the terrific threat. The invoice of Rights of the U. S. shape tries to evade tyranny of the majority. to disclaim the rights of small communities is unamerican. With a representative Democracy compromises are much less complicated. Legislators are compelled to be contemporary at debates so as to pay attention the different area. Legislators can improve into experts in pressing problems and persuade others to vote with them.

Answer 5

People will always be excluded from the political process. there is always a different agenda on the otherside of an election. People are already sceptical.

Just try to get a citizen initiated referendum off the ground!

Answer 6

truly, the govt needs only to protect it's people from physical harm-
no farm subsidies, just be a good police force- watch the borders. and control them- (were not doing well at that)

just allow business to create the genius world we ought to have- police antitrust situations, promote economics in fair ways so we will become a rich nation, and the world can join as well, everything is provided on this world to do that- all the wars are scams for greed- humans are actually smart enough not to have to kill people to be able to drive big gas hog cars-

the sickness needs to be taken out-

Answer 7

I believe Thomas Jefferson called that the tyranny of the majority, which is why don't live in a direct democracy, or in a democracy at all, for that matter. America is a republic. Direct democracy is dictatorship waiting to happen.

Answer 8

Nothing in the US constitution says US citizens have a right to vote for the President.

The races for congress and the Senate are reasonably direct.

Maybe you need to define your terms. What do you mean by direct democracy?

Answer 9

it never works. it causes mob rule followed by anarchy. You may feel you are interested in politics but the majority of the people would base their decisions on bad or no information. Politicians spend all day everyday to understand what goes on in the country and world. everyday people cant do that.