With direct democracy there would not be an election mess in the US.

This post is not about the current dispute in the US about possible cheating in the presidential election. It is about showing how direct democracy would have prevented it.

The post is about illustrating how in a direct democracy election cheating is far less likely to happen. Even if it happened, it would not be as important as in a representative democracy.

In a direct democracy, parties and candidates do not fight like they do in a representative democracy. The reason is simple; winning or losing does not mean as much, because winning does not mean “power” like it does in a representative democracy.

Direct democracy is about the people making the important decisions about budgets, social programs, the economy, major public expenses, taxes, health system, education, treaties with other countries, etc. In a direct democracy, the people also have power over the laws and the constitution.

When the people have the final say, the elected representatives do not. This means they do not have the incentives to do what we see; to aggressively fight, or to cheat.

In a direct democracy, the elected representatives in the executive and the legislative have no power to raise or lower taxes, to make major public expenditures, to sign treaties, to make or change laws, change the constitution, etc., without the approval of the people.

That is why a direct democracy works better and is more stable than a representative democracy, provided that the people have common sense and respect for each other.

In a direct democracy, the people have double power; power to stop the elected representatives in the executive and the legislature, but they also have power to introduce new laws and to change the constitution. As you know, in the US, and in any other representative democracy, the people do not have that power.

The power of voters in a direct democracy, to stop the money from going where the lobbies want, prevents decisions favouring particular interests at the expense of the common good.

With less power in the hands of politicians, the current bitter fights between Trump and Biden, between Republican and Democrat senators and congressional representatives, to get elected would not happen.

In a direct democracy, winning is not so important because, whoever wins, can not do much without the consent of the voters.

In a representative democracy, “voters vote and the politicians forget about them until the next election.” In a direct democracy, “voters vote and have the power to make sure the politicians do not forget them”.

Perhaps in your country the fights for power are not as aggressive as in the United States, but if you have a representative democracy, your politicians have too much power. Control by relying on elections is weak control, as you probably know.

Representative democracy is more like an elected oligarchy; while in power, the elected representatives do anything they want.

Representative democracy is heads and shoulders about any other regime; autocratic, authoritarian, one-party rule or one-religion rule, and that is good. But representative democracy is not really a democracy when you compare it with direct democracy.

If you would like to make things better, you can bring real democracy to your country.

 

other regime; autocratic, authoritarian, one-party rule or one-religion rule, and that is good. But representative democracy is not really a democracy when you compare it with direct democracy. 

If you would like to make things better, you can bring real democracy to your country.

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments