Don't you think the participative (direct) democracy is better than representative democracy?

Question

I think the participative (direct) democracy is better than representative democracy。
In a country with a representative democracy the people interests are represented by the members of the parliament they elected. But after the elections the people can not really control what their representatives do.
But in a country as Switzerland, where there is participative democracy since 19th century, the people can purpose laws that can be voted by referendum. And if they don't like a law voted by the parliament they can purpose a better law to be voted by a referendum.
Also, in a participative democracy there is less room for coruption, because the people can check how are spent the money they paid for taxes to the state.
You can find more about participative democracy (named also direct democracy) by searching in www.yahoo.com for "participative democracy" or "direct democracy".
Also, see the below sites.
We can have a better life in a participative (direct) democracy.

www.britishcouncil.org/governance-expertise-participative-democracy.htm
http://mondediplo.com/1998/10/08brazil
www.utas.edu.au/government/APSA/RNashfinal.pdf
giussani.typepad.com/loip/2006/09/participative_d.html
www.thepublicvoice.org/news/press_freedom_speech.html
www.johnkay.com/political/295

Answer 1

No, not at the Federal level. All the benefits of Participatory Democracy already exist at the State and Local levels, where candidates are elected individually. On any larger scale, directly voting on every law before it is passed, in a sort of National Referendum is impractical if not impossible.
Are you going to require that everyone votes on every issue? If not then you are not going to realize the benefits of doing it that way. If you instead are willing to elect all your officials; Senators, Congressman, etc. Nationally, then you're back to a modified form of Representative Government anyway.
What you're missing here is the fact that this country is really 50 different states. Any Federal Government has to respect the rights and sovereignty of all of them equally. Direct Democracy was specifically avoided by the founding fathers because it would render the votes of the smaller states irrelevant. The 12 most populated states in this country combined have over 50% of the total population. That leaves 38 states that don't matter, because they would be consistently outvoted. The smaller states recognized this problem and would not have voted to form or join the Union in the first place if their rights were not protected.
The argument put forth now in support of Direct Democracy is really just a power play by the large states to bully and exploit the small ones. It's elitist and fundamentally unfair.

Answer 2

Not really. See, the problem with true democracy is that it does nothing to delegate the decision-making process. In our modern society, there are so many issues it's pretty much impossible for everyone to vote on all of them, so true democracy would result in a lot of wasted time. Electronic communications technology makes it easier, certainly, but not everyone has a computer or access to the Internet.

Answer 3

The major problem with participative democracy is the fact that the size of our country and the scope of our government are so large that it would be difficult to pass all of the necessary laws to function properly. Oversight of enforcement and judicial committees would be left to all of us, which to do effectively would require vast amounts of time. It is simply more efficient (even though our government is very inefficient as it stands) to nominate someone to do it for us, who closely represents our view. Often they do not act on those views, but the system of participative democracy generates many obligations to all of us that are currently only on a few of us no matter how bad a job they do of bungling. Basically society and the economy would suffer because many of us would have to spend more time monkeying with politics and less working or being with family or whatever we want to do with our free time.

Answer 4

No. A direct democracy would ultimately lead to the tyranny of the majority. A democracy was one of the things most feared by the founders.

Also, it goes against the very spirit of federalism. The states are supposed to represent the people in their capacity within the federal system.

Answer 5

the idea of a direct democracy works with a small number of voting citizens, like in Athens only Athenian born men were citizens. Even with them you had corruption with them voting to ostracize people when it suit them. In this country it is impractical because of the number of citizens and for the fact that minorities could be evicted by the government because the majority just wanted to do so.

Answer 6

I doubt it would make a lot of difference. The idea that tinkering with the government's form will improve society, as if it were some kind of "system," some kind of engineering problem, seems oversold to me.

I wouldn't be surprised if Switzerland would do about as well with any number of variations on their current scheme, and we no better.

Answer 7

Switzerland model is not suitable to our country. It is highly utopian, suitable where the citizens are highly evolved and literate. In a country where citizens are struggling even for a basic neccessities it is highly unthinkable for participative govt.

Answer 8

No. in a country as big as ours, that would make no sense at all

Answer 9

great question

Answer 10

No, that's a dumb idea.