Contrary to more popular notions that democracy is just electing a group of leaders, and that's that, a democracy when it was first defined, means:
Democracy is generally defined as a form of government in which all adult citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Ideally, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law. It can also encompass social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination.
Well, democracy can very very broadly be divided into two branches, direct and representative (Which is, what most of the world's democracies are.)
Now my question is that, would any of you support direct democracy?
Direct/Pure Democracy: Direct democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly, as opposed to a representative democracy in which people vote for representatives who then vote on policy initiatives.
The only example I can think of as a modern direct democracy is Switzerland. In Switzerland, single majorities are sufficient at the town, city, and canton level, but at the national level, double majorities are required on constitutional matters. The intent of the double majorities is simply to ensure any citizen-made law's legitimacy.
no. -most people do not have the ability to keep up whit evrything that happens in politics. -if all the people have to make the decisions, then you will have to go voting evry day for multiple subjects. -the majority is not always right. (sometimes even realy bad (i'm not gonna name countrys, it's not the topic)) -if you have to go vote evry day and keep track of the political agenda then that will take ALL your free time. -if your busy whit politics all of your free time then that will have a impact on your usefullness at work. (not if your intrested in it, but by far not evry1 realy is)
Good thing will b that no one will b in a position of abuse of power. Bad thing will b decisions will take more time and some matters are time sensitive(like war etc) So there should b a mix of both systems. Things like defence and foreign affairs should b centralized.
Probably not. Mostly because many people don't know the first thing about politics (nor are they able to make intelligent/educated decisions) and the government and others don't know or keep up with every little detail (myself included). I do think our government needs to be less representative and more direct, however; once someone is elected they basically do whatever they (or their party) want to do without taking the opinions of the people they're representing into account whatsoever.
In an ideal world, yes, because in such a world, the people would be educated on the matters, and intelligent enough to act in not self-interest, but for the betterment of the nation. However we live in a world, where people are easily biased, and more often than not, either uncaring about the politics, or favor a particular candidate out of party loyalty rather than their platform.
Also, for those who are interested, Marxism is a form of direct democracy, don't confuse it with Leninism, or Stalinism, while all three fall under the communist banner, both Leninism and Stalinism differ, and that Lenin called for a core group of revolutionaries, and Stalin was just a crazy ****ing dictator.
To do what all the seperate representative committees do, we'd need to hold nationwide votes every hour of every day. It's too much. Also, no one wants to pay taxes. If we set our own taxes (at 0 or by donations) like it was under the Articles of Confederation, it won't work.
At the current moment? No. Too many people these days listen to a grand total of zero issues and only look for the little letter next to a person's name on the ballot. However, assuming that everyone was educated, and these things could be conducted online (no one, and I mean no one, will go to a polling station every day), than yes, I would support it.
