Make your own free website on

Andrew Kokanoutranon

Direct and Indirect Democracy

WWII Cause and Effects
World History Standards
Threaded Discussions
Journal Entries
Study Guides
Special Projects
Electronic Portfolio Semester #2
Group Projects

Direct and Indirect Democracy

Direct and indirect democracies have both been debated on which one is more effect. A direct democracy is a type of government which includes the citizens to vote on the decisions brought on by the legislative and executive branches. All of the citizens of the state have a say on a certain decision, then they take a vote to decide what side of the situation, the majority rules. Switzerland is a great example of a direct democracy because the Swiss government invites 240 citizens to each voting poll; the idea of an internet voting site has been thought about but not yet approved. In an indirect democracy, the citizens do not have as much say as in a direct democracy. The citizens of the state elect a representative to make decisions for them, but once elected, it is difficult to recall the representative. An indirect democracy can be found in countries such as the United States and Canada, which the process of electing a representative from each of the states and going to speak on for the citizens. Unlike the direct democracy, indirect democracy has a major flaw, because it only involves a handful of people to determine a decision. This major flaw may lead to corruption and a downfall of a nation. Countries like the United States have created a system to control the balance of power to limit total power into a few people; this is called the check and balances.
I believe that the indirect democracy of the United States is the most superior type of government. The indirect democracy of the United States has a superior advantage over other types. In this case U.S. has a system balance to prevent corruption among the government powers. The indirect democracy allows only state representative to vote instead of the citizens, I believe this method is a lot more effective and less time consuming. The indirect government also doesn’t have to worry about uncooperative citizens and little things along that line to slow down the voting process.

I disagree to the essay Jordan Backman wrote about the direct democracy. I believe that the indirect democracy is more superior to that of the direct democracy because I believe that appointing state representatives is a better concept for running a democracy, instead of having the average Joe making decisions that may lead to dire consequences in the future. Even though a direct government is a great idea I think by having educated representatives to speak on behalf of the citizens seem to be a better choice, but the indirect democracy has a major flaw by only giving power to a handful of people, this may lead to corruption of the government. Thankfully the United State government created a check and balances system to keep the branches of the government. The direct democracy is also a good idea for all the citizens to participate in government actions, but I also believe that most citizens of each state won’t take the voting process to seriously; they may be late to a meeting or just decide not to go and vote. The citizens may be come to careless enough to just vote randomly, think of it as Jury Duty, people always try to find a way out of doing or are reluctant to participate. All these little situations may lead to a large problem in the future; the absence of a citizen during a vote may slow down the process and put a halt to the decision. By having representatives go and vote for you, this makes it easier on most citizens, the state rep gets paid to go and speak on your behalf so this would also make the voting process quicker.

Enter supporting content here