1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Sergio [31]
3 years ago
14

What do direct democracies and representative democracies have in common?

History
2 answers:
erma4kov [3.2K]3 years ago
8 0

Answer:

Direct democracy, properly understood, means that the masses have direct control over governance. If this were pervasive in social institutions, it would exist in workplaces as well as control over public affairs.

This means there is some organized base of people — in a neighborhood, workplace — and they come together to deliberate on issues that affect them, have discussions, and can decide the issue through their own direct vote.

Merely voting is not sufficient by itself. Direct democracy is participatory democracy and requires that people can participate, and have available the access to information and education, the means to develop their capacity for self-management. Direct democracy is about self-management — control over the decisions that affect you.

The objection has been that this can only apply on a relatively small or local scale. Advocates for direct democracy have developed delegate democracy as the way to extend direct democracy to larger scope. Delegates differ from “representatives” in the following ways: delegates are not professional politicians with huge staffs of their own, delegates derive from the same social circumstances as the people they speak for, live in the neighborhood or work in the workplace. Delegates must report back to assemblies of the base organization, and are expected to use decisions of the base to guide their activity. They can be removed or over-ruled through action of the base assemblies.

“Representative democracy” was an idea concocted in the 19th century when voting was first extended to propertyless working class males. It’s the idea that somehow government rests on the consent of the governed because legislators or governors are elected. But in reality there is no way to control what they do once elected. They don’t have to come to local assemblies to report back and we can’t simply overrule them or remove them through holding local assemblies.

The recent study by two researchers at Princeton showed what this is worth. They compared mass opinion to a series of 2,000 government decisions or policy issues. In almost all cases where the wealthy elite differed with mass opinion, it was the view of the elite that won out. They concluded that the power of the masses to get their favored policies adopted was virtually nil — unless they happened to agree with what the elite wanted.

yulyashka [42]3 years ago
3 0

Answer:

They are both government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Explanation:

You might be interested in
What was the great compromise? what two plans did it combine?
12345 [234]
The Great Compromise Allowed House of Representatives to be based on each state's population and a Senate with two representatives from each state. This was a combo of Virginia Plan and New Jersey Plan.
4 0
3 years ago
Plzzz help!!!
Sati [7]
I think this hun <span>Artists began to refer to printed images when exploring new designs and subject matter.

</span>
8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Who were the key players in the civil rights movement? how did they participate?
Pavlova-9 [17]

Answer:

The civil rights movement was a struggle for justice and equality for ... that people they'd once enslaved were now on a more-or-less equal playing field. ... Ferguson that facilities for blacks and whites could be “separate but equal.” ... as 600 peaceful demonstrators participated in the Selma to Montgomery ...

6 0
3 years ago
Which of the following people is an example of a serf
AURORKA [14]
<h2><u>Answer:</u></h2>

Serfs were the laborers of lowest levels in many zones of medieval Europe, however, in some, there were slaves, who were at a lower level. Serfs were not slaves but rather were not allowed to leave the land where they worked.

Their commitment with their medieval master was shared; he had commitments to them, to give a place and ensure them, similarly as they had commitments to him, to give a piece of the product, or later, cash for lease. Serfs couldn't be purchased or sold.

They had a place with the land, not the ruler. In the event that the master sold the land, they ran with it. The new proprietor did not have the alternative of moving them off the land.

8 0
3 years ago
In 1649 ,the act of toleration
vaieri [72.5K]

Answer:

Wednesday, April 21

Explanation:

8 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Why was Luther made an outlaw within the Holy Roman Empire PLEASE HELP
    11·2 answers
  • Ottomans leader suleyman and safavids leader abbas were different for what reasons
    8·1 answer
  • When did hitler die
    5·2 answers
  • 3. What factors<br> contributed to the<br> fall of the Roman<br> Republic?
    14·2 answers
  • What was the first US space rocket launched in 1958?
    5·2 answers
  • What were four impacts of industrialization​
    8·1 answer
  • Which of these is an example of a "Black Code"? *
    5·1 answer
  • Michaela used wat style of painting
    12·1 answer
  • 11. During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the plans for Congress proposed by delegates from New Jersey and Virginia diff
    10·1 answer
  • Which program sets up tax to help benefit retired people
    11·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!