Differences between direct democracy and a republic
In a direct democracy, power is held by the entire population, unlike in a republic where individual citizens are elected by citizens and given the power and mandate to lead them and represent them on government matters. Direct or pure democracies are also characterized by lawmaking that is done by a voting majority with unlimited power to come up with laws. In this regard, minorities do not have sufficient protection from the majority’s will. This is unlike in a republic, where representatives are elected by the people to create laws within the confines of the constitution. Additionally, the majority rules in direct democracies, unlike in a republic where the elected representatives make laws on people’s behalf. Lastly, while the majority can override protection rights in direct democracies, the constitution protects everyone’s right in republics. California (CA) is an excellent demonstration of direct democracies in the United States. In this state, voters can take matters in their hands and recall elected individuals, repeal or enact laws. In CA, voters have been given checks on the electorate (Holt, P. 243).
Consequences of Direct Democracy
One of the issues linked to direct democracies is that since it needs more voters to vote regardless of their party positions, the voters are also expected to become well informed by reading to reach smart decisions. Many of the citizens in regions with direct democracy lack time to conduct sufficient research or read through big documents before voting. This is an addition to the numerous measures on certain ballots make citizens skip the measures they lack an understanding. As a result, some ballots of direct democracies often earn few votes as compared to the presidential or gubernatorial choices (Gerston).
Additionally, initiatives can easily raise taxes or change the constitution. Additionally, in a direct democracy, recalls can easily remove individuals from their elected positions. People can also be misadvised or wrongfully advised until they get confused or make wrong decisions. For instance, citizens who depend on initiative titles, television ads or advice from their friends or neighbours for information may be influenced to vote in a certain way. Direct democracies give interest groups a freeway to fund their projects. These groups can establish organizations which spearhead initiatives or constitutional changes. Wealthy individuals or interest groups back the collection of signatures to find funding for their projects. Because of this, direct democracy provides businesspeople or wealthy individuals with a way to ensure their special interests are fulfilled rather than that of the citizens. Therefore, direct ballots have been used in a way that deteriorates democracy. Lastly, besides the huge documents which people are often reluctant to read, related debates concerning the proposed changes have often highlighted the differences which opposing parties have for one another rather than bringing to light the critical issues of concern which should be changed. As a result, public debates linked to direct democracies have failed to provide relevant information or educate people concerning ballot issues (Wilson).
Conclusion
Even though direct democracy provides people with power to make critical legislative or constitutionally related issues unlike republics which elect a few people to do these on their behest, direct democracies are linked with numerous challenges. For instance, people might be misinformed to make wrong decisions or choices. Additionally, interest groups might influence the outcomes of voting processes to favour their special interests.