While a direct democracy may sound well and good, there are several problems. First, important decisions that need to be made quickly are bogged down when collecting votes; unless there is a fast-acting legislative body or executive power, issues such as national defense can be severely hampered by waiting for votes on an issue. Second, the general public is often uneducated and unfamiliar with political decisions and their aftermath; having a direct democracy would be like having everyone fix their own pipes, rather than just paying a plumber. Third, the creation of legislation would be infeasible; how can you have an entire nation write a bill? Fourth, requiring citizens to vote on day-to-day decisions and administrative actions would take up too much time; and, those who were more politically active or had more time on their hands would have more say than those who either didn't frequently vote on issues or were too busy to bother.
Chat with our AI personalities
direct
NO. The United States is a representative democracy and its Constitution gives no provisions for direct democracy.
The Mayflower compact would be a better example of Direct Democracy then Indirect Democracy. This is because the agreement was ment so that the British Gov could not easily control them as everyone would have a say in it and decide wether it was wise to let the Britsh Gov interfere. An Indirect demo would be where citizens would tell their elected official their opinions and he would report to the king. Our US gov is a good example of Indirect democracy though it also shares a few beliefs with Direct Democracy.
We elect people to represent us, therefore, it is a representative democracy.
How has the US lived up to the declaration of democracy the pursuit of happiness?