The correct answer is A. It can be more responsive to the interests of citizens.
Explanation
Direct democracy is a form of government in which all members of a community/country/state actively participate in all decisions made there. On the other hand, there is indirect democracy, the evolution of direct democracy, in it, the decisions depend on a group of representatives elected by citizens, this modality of democracy has been adopted in most modern states.
Direct democracy has advantages over indirect democracy because it better responds to the interests of citizens as each of them will actively participate in the government, thus allowing decisions to be made and ensuring that their interests are taken into account. On the other hand, in indirect democracy, once you elect your representative, you have no direct control over the decisions he makes, regardless of whether they go against your interests. Therefore, the correct answer is A. It can be more responsive to the interests of citizens.
I would most possibly do the same thing, or take the south back to US as brothers, but I might also add a little punishment. The punishment would be limited import for a period of years (1, or 5). I would also not allow them to vote or participate in any political meeting, congressional decisions, etc.
Hope this helps, you might have a different opinion however, but as I think, it would be better to punish them for
1. Not obeying the rules (still having slavery)
2. Electing a secondary president.
3. Helping the war happen.
4. Trying to become independent from the rest of US.
The Great Commoner--for his ability to connect to the common man.
William Jennings Bryan had an ability to speak but also connect to the ordinary American person. He connected to the rural communities and eventually became the leader of the Populist Party and the Democratic Party. He believed in fundamental Christianity, temperance, farming, the common people.
