5. Direct Democracy in the U.S.A.--The Practice of Direct Democracy within an Overall Context of Representative Democracy:

Although significant concessions to direct democracy are made at the state and local levels of government in the U.S.A., all state governments and most local governments are representative democracies, rather than direct democracies. All fifty state legislatures are assemblies of representatives elected by the voters. With the exception of town meetings in the more rural, less populous New England towns, all local legislatures are elected representative assemblies. Most state statutes and local ordinances in the U.S.A. are the consequences of final decisions made by elected legislatures, not those made by direct vote of the adult citizenry at large.

6. Direct Democracy and Representative Democracy Contrasted:

Direct democracy is characterized by direct participation of the general citizenry in governmental decisionmaking on matters of public policy. Representative democracy, on the other hand, operates on the principle of popular control over--rather than popular participation in--the public-policy decisionmaking carried on by government.

Direct democracy operates on the principle of direct legislation--direct exercise of legislative authority by the general adult populace comprising the political community. Laws are enacted either by a mass assembly consisting of the adult citizenry as a whole or by the voters voting in an election--a plebiscite, or referendum.

Systems of representative democracy are based on the principle of political representa- tion--exercise of legislative authority by a representative assembly elected by the voters. Representative democracy is characterized by the existence and operation of representative policy decisionmaking institutions consisting of public officeholders popularly elected, at relatively short intervals, on a broad electoral franchise.

In brief, governing authority in a representative democracy is not exercised directly by the whole body of adult citizens, as is the case in a direct democracy. In a representative democracy of the pure-type, where there are no concessions to direct democracy, statutory laws are made neither by plebiscite nor by a mass legislative assembly of the general populace. Instead, the general voting populace elects a smaller body of representatives who constitute the legislature and make laws for and in the name of the entire community.

7. The Political Theory Underlying and Supporting Direct Democracy:

Certain radically democratic political thinkers and writers of the past developed and advanced a series of arguments critical of representative democracy and supportive of direct democracy. These arguments now constitute a body of political theory, or philosophy, intended to justify direct democracy over representative democracy.

According to this body of theory, representative "democracy" cannot be truly democratic. One person cannot represent the interests of another. In a representative government, elected representatives represent neither the general interest of the whole community nor the particular interests of the voters who put them in office. Once they have taken office and have begun to make the official decisions of government on public policy, elected representatives are guided by self-interest, give first priority to enhancing and perpetuating their own political power, and are highly responsive to the special interests and demands of wealthy and influential minorities that can help the elected officeholders retain their positions of political authority. For a governmental system to be truly democratic, all adult citizens must be members of the legislature and have the right to participate directly in the process of legislative decisionmaking on public policy. There must be direct participation by the masses--by the people, by the whole body of adult citizens--in the making of decisions that have the force of law and are binding on the entire society. Representative government leads to oligarchy, to rule by the few. Only direct democracy is consistent with Aristotle's definition of "democracy"--"rule by the many."

Examples of political theorists who have argued in favor of direct democracy and against representative democracy include (1) Jean Jacques Rousseau, an eighteenth-century French political philosopher, and (2) certain anarchists of the nineteenth century. Rousseau was a radical democratic thinker and writer of the Age of Enlightenment, a political theorist of the coming French Revolution, and an advocate of absolute as well as direct democracy. A notable nineteenth-century anarchist advocating direct democracy was the Frenchman Pierre Joseph Proudon, who called for (1) dissolution of France and the other sovereign states of Europe and (2) formation of small, virtually independent local communities, which were to be loosely and voluntarily held together in a European confederation.

8. The Political Theory Underlying and Supporting Representative Democracy:

The body of political theory underlying and supporting representative democracy contains four key arguments against direct democracy and in favor of representative democracy.

Argument One. Direct democracy is not a realistic alternative to representative government. It is impossible for the people as a whole to intelligently make public policy over a wide range of issues. Most people lack the time, energy, and interest to give such a high level of ongoing personal attention to politics and public affairs. Also, they are without the necessary education, information, and political skills.

Argument Two. Direct democracy is an undesirable as well as impractical system of government. When legislative authority is exercised by the masses, they frequently make hasty and unwise decisions on public policy, arriving at such decisions on the basis of momentary popular wishes and passions or under the influence of clever political propagandists and dangerous demagogues.

Argument Three. Direct democracy makes it virtually impossible to negotiate political bargains and compromises among opposing groups with conflicting views and interests. In every political controversy, one side emerges the total victor and the other side the total loser, leaving the losing side dissatisfied, alienated, and determined to reverse the decision, regardless of the costs and consequences. Political conflict over the issue continues, even though negotiation and bargaining might have discovered a middle ground acceptable to both sides. This makes for a high level of social tension and tends to destabilize the society and its government.

Argument Four. In a direct democracy, there is the ever-present danger of tyranny of the majority. In a political community where all adult citizens are members of the legislature, it is virtually impossible to limit the power of the majority. Unchecked rule by the majority leads to the majority's abuse of political authority and the minority's loss of rights. The majority, self-interested and governing in an overbearing fashion, deprives members of the minority of their legal rights. There are no institutional safeguards to moderate and restrain the exercise of governmental power and prevent the majority from riding roughshod over the rights and vital interests of members of the minority.

Representative democracy, according to its underlying and supporting political theory, is far superior to direct democracy. The masses cannot be trusted with political authority. The masses lack the wisdom and good judgement needed to provide good government--i.e., to govern effectively and, at the same time, preserve liberty and ensure justice. Instead of making governmental decisions themselves, the people should be allowed to vote in elections to choose a governing elite--a small group of leaders who will make the governmental decisions. The voters should have the right and opportunity to decide among competing political elites--to decide which of the elites, or leadership groups, will exercise political authority until after the next election. Legislative decisionmakers should acquire political authority by means of a competitive but peaceful and legal struggle for the support of a majority of the electorate.

In short, the people lack the capacity to govern society effectively, wisely and justly, but are quite capable of (1) choosing the small group of leaders who are to govern society, (2) holding the governors, or rulers, accountable for their decisions and actions while in office, and, (3) if dissatisfied, voting the governors out of office when the next election is conducted. While it is impractical to expect the people to directly govern society, it is quite practical to expect them to choose society's rulers from among rival political elites--to select the few who shall rule until after the next election, when their terms of office expire.

James Madison, the late eighteenth and early nineteenth-century American political theorist and statesman, was among those who developed and presented arguments against direct democracy and in favor of representative government. Madison was instrumental in the convening of the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787 and played an important role in the drafting of the United States Constitution and in securing its ratification and adoption. In The Federalist (1787-1788), Madison made a major contribution to the body of political theory underlying and supporting the U.S. Constitution and the American constitutional system. In Federalist 10, Madison maintained that, of the different types of popular government, direct democracy was the least likely to effectively limit governmental power, safeguard liberty and ensure justice, that tyrannical rule by a self-interested and overbearing majority was bound to be the consequence of government by common mass assembly.