The Instigator
Idprefertoremainanonymous
Con (against)
The Contender
shofutamura
Pro (for)

Direct Democracy is inherently better and more fair than any other democracy based government.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Idprefertoremainanonymous has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/13/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 242 times Debate No: 104989
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

Idprefertoremainanonymous

Con

This is the definition of direct democracy I am using, "Direct democracy (also known as pure democracy) is a form of democracy in which people decide (e.g. vote on, form consensus on) policy initiatives directly."

My argument is that direct democracy is inferior, and not morally superior to a representative democracy, or a republic. Everyone knows that incompetent leaders are a danger to any form of government. But direct democracies tend to breed them. Ill point to the example Socrates lays out in Book 6 of The Republic. Who would you rather have run a ship someone qualified with an understanding of how the ship works and what is needed to keep it afloat or just any random person? This is the major flaw with direct democracy. When you have just any Tom, Dick, or Harry choosing how a government runs you are bound to come across issues that a government ran by qualified people would seldom face. I must bring up a major issue with direct democracies is that they can be easily manipulated by legitimate, and illegitimate means. An example of a legitimate way to manipulate a direct democracy is by using a Demagogue. A demagogue can turn a direct democracy on its head. A demagogue is someone who appeals to the masses through their ignorance, prejudice, and their emotions. They are incredibly effective at derailing a direct democracy as men like Adolf Hitler, and Cleon of Athens has shown us. An illegitimate means of manipulating a direct democracy is vote fraud. While any government can face voter fraud direct democracies are especially vulnerable to it. A notable scenario would be if someone rigged the popular vote in an American election most likely nothing major would happen, but if someone was to rig a vote in a direct democracy the people's will would be undermined thus defeating the purpose of a direct democracy. In conclusion, the fact that direct democracies often rely upon the will of unqualified individuals to make decisions a whole nation will be affected by, and its vulnerability to corruption make it an inferior system to say a representative democracy or a republic.

http://classics.mit.edu...
shofutamura

Pro

Direct Democracy can be good for a lot of things. For example...

1.The people get to write and vote on laws,rather than a republic where represententives make the laws. This means,in a direct democracy,anybody can12s have a chance to vote and create a law and hold daily national refrendum.

2.Direct democracy would help encourage voter turnout as more and more people have a chance to vote in laws. Moreover,the people would know that they would make a difference in voting,thus increasing voter turnout even more.

3. In a republic,the people would have to make a risk to trust a politican. Direct democracy would insure more trust towards a politican and is less risky political system.

4.The goverment would have to provide information to the people so that they could understand the law. This builds more trsutworthiness in the goverment.
Debate Round No. 1
Idprefertoremainanonymous

Con

The good things you mention are in reality the flaws of a direct democracy.

1. You have anyone making laws for a nation that everyone in that nation has to follow. This is just not a good idea as most people are uneducated on politics, and what works best.

2. Ill Admit that it does boost voter turn out, but this leads to another issue. See number one.

3. Again you put too much trust into the uneducated masses who often act on emotion and ignorance. While yes in a republic you do have to put your trust in someone to represent you that representative also protects you from the tyranny of the majority.

4. You count on the government being trustworthy. Direct Democracies just like other forms of government can have untrustworthy officials.

You might think that my whole argument is based off not trusting the population, and you would be mostly right. Why place your trust in millions of people to all do the right thing when you can trust only one to a thousand people to do the right thing. The odds are in favor of republics, and other forms of governments. Republics also provide security for the minorities of a nation. Say a white majority nation voted that blacks should give them 50% of their income. It would be the will of the people, and cant be ignored. I understand constitutions are a thing, but what is stopping the majority from voting to abolish one? And if they are denied that what is stopping the majority from rebelling. People fail to understand that. With most other systems if they turn tyrannical you have the minority oppressing the majority, and rebellion is significantly easier than with a direct democracy. Where if the people turn tyrannical you have the majority oppressing the minority. To sum it up in a direct democracy you are placing a lot of trust in people who have no business running a government to run a government all while expecting minorities to stand by and follow the will of the majority.
shofutamura

Pro

1. You say that most people are uneducated in politics. The solution to this is that the goverment gives the people the information they need about politics so that the uneducated masses can get educated.

2.In countries such as Australia and the United States,people can't vote for their leaders and have to invest their trust into senators/electors that sometimes put bad people into office. (*cough cough* Donald trump and Tony Abbot.) With direct democracy,the people can choose their leaders without the expsense of unelected electors secretly ruling the country,

You put your trust in a republicican nation,when in fact,its just like any other sytsem. No one ideology is perfect. A ideology is destened to at least have one flaw,wethter it be major or minor. The point is,a republic has just the amount of flaws a democracy does. Nothing is 100% perfect.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by shofutamura 1 month ago
shofutamura
lol he hasen't gotten back yet
Posted by Idprefertoremainanonymous 2 months ago
Idprefertoremainanonymous
Of course, not every white person believes the same thing.
Posted by Idprefertoremainanonymous 2 months ago
Idprefertoremainanonymous
You completely missed the point of that argument. It was to showcase that the majority could easily oppress the minority.
Posted by shofutamura 2 months ago
shofutamura
You left out one thing. You said a white majority nation could rule against the minoirty. First off,you have a huge flaw in that statement. Not all white people in that country would be under with the same ideology,unless it is influenced by the ruling party. The claim that an entire race would agree to vote for the exact same thing is almost absurd. In America,(which btw is a white majority nation),not all the white people would agree for the same thing. There are white socialists,white liberals,white conservatives...ect.
Posted by FeelingsCrusher 2 months ago
FeelingsCrusher
I believe in a representative system, In pure democracy, people cannot always state their opinion because their freedom is up to the choice to the majority, and i know that we love to act like we care about the minorities, but not when it comes to things we care and disagree on
Posted by 18debate 2 months ago
18debate
If everyone is spending all their time voting on laws, when would they work?
Posted by Idprefertoremainanonymous 2 months ago
Idprefertoremainanonymous
Switzerland, Athens, The Paris Commune, and Rojava all have had a form of Direct Democracy, and even if no nation adopted it I believe it would still be worth debating as the idea of democracy is valued in today's world.
Posted by canis 2 months ago
canis
Does direct democacy, (and the power that follows with it), exist anywhere ?..No.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.