Ayush Chaurasia - Week 7 - Does America’s Democracy Truly Represent the People?
Twelve months from now, the 2024 presidential election will take place. Twelve months from now, we will watch the US president be chosen based on the counties and states they win, not the number of people who vote for them.
Amidst this, some questions are raised—is the representative democracy currently in place in America truly effective? Would a direct democracy be more effective?
This is a heated debate that has been going on in America since the 2016 presidential election; Hillary Clinton got 2 million more votes from the American people than her opponent got, but she still failed to get the electoral college votes necessary to win the presidency.
Defining the two types of democracy helps visualize their benefits and drawbacks. A representative democracy is a system in which citizens elect representatives to vote on their behalf. Meanwhile, a direct democracy allows the citizens to vote on leadership and legislation without the middlemen.
Amidst this, some questions are raised—is the representative democracy currently in place in America truly effective? Would a direct democracy be more effective?
This is a heated debate that has been going on in America since the 2016 presidential election; Hillary Clinton got 2 million more votes from the American people than her opponent got, but she still failed to get the electoral college votes necessary to win the presidency.
Defining the two types of democracy helps visualize their benefits and drawbacks. A representative democracy is a system in which citizens elect representatives to vote on their behalf. Meanwhile, a direct democracy allows the citizens to vote on leadership and legislation without the middlemen.
 |
| www.englishpluspodcast.com/direct-vs-representative-democracy-which-truly-reflects-the-peoples-will/ |
In a direct democracy, decisions are made by simply seeing which choice has the most votes. People living in rural areas often shy away from this type of democracy because they feel that the larger number of people living in cities would have too much power. After all, the majority of Americans live in urban areas, meaning that a direct democracy would lead to little representation of rural people’s interests in government.
However, a representative democracy overemphasizes the interests of rural people. In the current US House of Representatives, rural states have more representatives per person than densely populated states, as this US census data shows. A similar story plays out in the electoral college and the senate.
Because of this issue, many people support the idea of a direct democracy. I see why, since a direct democracy is the basis of ensuring that the actions of our government are truly representative of the best interests of the majority.
So, the answers to the two questions asked earlier in this blog are not necessarily definitive. Depending on the perspective taken on the issue, either style of democracy would be more effective in America.
My answer to those questions, however, is that a direct democracy would be a more fair way for America to truly be run by the people. The state or county I live in should not have an effect on how much my vote is worth (unfortunately, one vote in California is worth much less than a vote in states like Alaska or Wyoming). Europe has multiple examples of successful countries using direct democracies (such as Germany). The people in those countries are much more satisfied with their government—American approval rates with the government are only half of Germany’s rate.
Regardless, the arduous process of making a change in the US government makes it unlikely that we will ever see the switch to a direct democracy, so the current system is probably here to stay.
However, a representative democracy overemphasizes the interests of rural people. In the current US House of Representatives, rural states have more representatives per person than densely populated states, as this US census data shows. A similar story plays out in the electoral college and the senate.
Because of this issue, many people support the idea of a direct democracy. I see why, since a direct democracy is the basis of ensuring that the actions of our government are truly representative of the best interests of the majority.
So, the answers to the two questions asked earlier in this blog are not necessarily definitive. Depending on the perspective taken on the issue, either style of democracy would be more effective in America.
My answer to those questions, however, is that a direct democracy would be a more fair way for America to truly be run by the people. The state or county I live in should not have an effect on how much my vote is worth (unfortunately, one vote in California is worth much less than a vote in states like Alaska or Wyoming). Europe has multiple examples of successful countries using direct democracies (such as Germany). The people in those countries are much more satisfied with their government—American approval rates with the government are only half of Germany’s rate.
Regardless, the arduous process of making a change in the US government makes it unlikely that we will ever see the switch to a direct democracy, so the current system is probably here to stay.
Hi Ayush! I find your blog topic very interesting, and more relevant than others, due to discourse within our government and the people. I like how you immediately begin with an intriguing example to introduce us to your topic and one of your main arguments for direct democracy. I never knew that Hilary actually won the popular vote by 2 million people, but still lost the presidential campaign. However, I feel like there are also many problems with direct democracy. For example, direct democracy will be completely dominated by pure population. You mentioned how rural people get more representatives per person, but this is to avoid having a large population work for their benefit and drown out the voices of the underrepresented people, causing a majority to benefit. This doesn't just damage people with geographically based population disadvantages, but any sort of minority within the U.S., such as people of color, and people like us, as citizens of the U.S. are more likely to vote for their own benefit. In addition, with increased power for the people, citizens of the U.S. will begin to become more pressured, as they are forced to be more involved with politics, causing more tensions about politics to arise. This may cause even larger rifts between people, and even lead to conflicts and peer pressure changing how elections are carried on. Overall, I feel like both sides of the argument have their own upsides and downsides. Personally, I think that, although the logistics may be more confusing, the best solution is a mix of both direct and representative democracies.
ReplyDelete