### You are viewing a page indexed by search engine. All comments on the topic are put together without order and may be confusing to read. To see organized discussion click here. ###

Majority does not mean right. Also, people will vote based on the betterment of themselves rather than the country as a whole.It is about time for us regular folks force majority rule and minority consideration and to prevent the elite from controlling our lives and processes of gov't. Maybe that can be solved with passing a fundamental bill of rights applicable to all individuals. Other laws could not contradict these rights. [1] In representative democracy, like the one in United States, minorities (corporations) through legalized bribery (lobbying) impose their will on majority (people). The flaws of direct democracy are applicable to representative democracy as well, and to representatives who vote directly for laws.

Only if there is an assumption that representatives are more knowledgeable than us can we trust and hope they will make more sound judgments and better informed decisions. But is this assumption correct?

I can watch congressional hearings on C-SPAN and hear all the arguments of expert witnesses, and make an informed decision just like senators. Why not?

But these same arguments seem also to apply for representatives we usually vote for. Neither they have all the relevant knowledge, nor can we with our limited knowledge on the topic make an informed judgment about their positions on the topic, whether they are knowledgeable or not.

It seems to me that with representative democracy this liability of making uninformed judgments or responsibility of getting informed before voting is only relayed to another person we vote for.

But how can everybody vote for things they know nothing about? Why would I be allowed to vote for permissible levels of greenhouse gas emissions when I know nothing about the subject?

Or why should I be able to vote about death penalty when I don't know the whole history of the subject, and all the legal, moral, social and religious arguments that were presented throughout the history both by opponents and proponents of capital punishment. In direct democracy majorities can force their will on minorities. Individual rights of minorities would be endangered. Even some anarchist feel that its majoritarianism can impede individual liberty, and favor consensus democracy instead. I am all for direct democracy. Voting for representatives based on their empty promises makes no guarantee they will keep them once they are elected. Representatives do not represent people who vote for them, they just receive from their votes a legitimacy for doing whatever they are doing.

In past direct voting was not possible except on very local levels. Technology of today makes direct voting on all issues possible and realistic. Direct democracy vs. representative democracy.