2007-02-28 04:53:38 · 7 answers · asked by want to fix the world 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Well mainyl because I dont think it works. History would say that most likely a democratic republic like he have now works the best. The people tend to sway to and fro about their opinions on things too much so instead they elect officials that they feel represent their ideas and then they decide on the laws, and we rotate them out every x number of years. Worked pretty well I must say we've managed to last longer than any empire in recorded history.
2007-02-28 04:58:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The framers of the Constitution established this country as a Representative Republic. A Representative Republic is where we vote people to elected office who represent our views. Since the Constitution is the document all of our government is based we don't have a direct democracy. However, if it's a direct democracy you are looking for you can always try to change it. It just takes like 2/3rds of congress and a bunch of States to ratify it.
2007-02-28 13:07:52 · answer #2 · answered by Robert and Tanya 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you think the government works slowly now a direct democracy would be even slower. Every one of several million people would need to be heard. Then a vote would need to be taken and several millions beyond the speakers would join the speakers in voting. Our country is too large for true democracy so we have a democratic-republic where we elect people to represent our interests. We don't always get our way but we would't in a pure democracy either. Majority rules in either instance.
2007-02-28 13:10:13 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you are referring to the USA:
Because the framers of the constitution were at odds over how to formulate the new government.
The model of representative republic was kind of a compromise.
Over the years there has been an erosion of individual rights and
liberty. The more power given to the Federal, the more power taken from the States and individuals. At this point a lot of what
goes on at the federal level is a matter of lobbying and who has the biggest wallet. Sad, and I bet our founders are spinning in their graves.
PS. Little talked about fact, there actually is no constitutional right to vote in federal elections.
2007-02-28 13:08:11 · answer #4 · answered by zaphodsclone 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
direct democracy is very inefficient.
it can work for small groups, but consider a nation of 300mill (with maybe 150mill eligible to vote...which is a wild guess) trying to debate and vote on every item that passes through congress.
not only that, but (in theory at least) our representatives in congress educate themselves on the issues at hand and how they will affect the nation. i don't know about you but i know almost nothing on agriculture so i am not qualified to vote on those issues. i'd also say that the vast majority of americans don't truly understand international politics and are thus not qualified to vote on issues relating to it.
but of course there are representatives out there who also aren't qualified.
2007-02-28 13:07:12 · answer #5 · answered by Mr. O 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Originally, the founding fathers and first continental congress wanted it to be that way. However, the more rural states threw a hissy fit, saying it was unfair for the more populous states (such as New York) to have a greater say in who was elected for the Presidency.
2007-02-28 13:00:54 · answer #6 · answered by mamasquirrel 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
60 million people all wanting whats best for them.
There would be no taxation and the national health would be free mmm so how would we pay the doctors and nurses.
Some roads with no speed limits, mobile phones all the time and just down the road - speed limits of 20 mph
Ciaos
2007-02-28 13:11:12 · answer #7 · answered by Freethinking Liberal 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋