AnswerInitiatives, referenda, and recalls provide citizens with powerful tools to participate directly in governing their states. Although direct democracy is not the dominant form of democracy in the United States, it forces representatives to act more honestly and professionally knowing that citizens could have a referendum on a proposal or even recall a representative from office.
Direct democracy can often take a long time to initiate. Even a good idea that could potentially have a large amount of support may take a long time to gain enough traction to become an official proposal.
Also, the average citizen may not be fully aware of the facts surrounding an issue or might go to the polls to vote without knowing anything about the proposals on the ballot. This means that uninformed citizens may not be making the best decision for their communities.
Direct initiatives and referenda present another potential problem in that this model provides no safeguard for minority rights. A majority of the people might vote yes on a proposal, but this doesn’t guarantee that it is a good idea for everyone who might be affected by the proposal.
In the United States, where there is no direct democracy at the federal level, more than half of the states (and many municipalities) allow citizens to vote on initiatives, and the vast majority of states have mechanisms to promote initiatives or referendums. There are also community meetings (town meetings) and various institutions at the municipal level where citizens can interact with those responsible for administration in decision-making. The disadvantages of the initiatives is that any citizen could present it at any time and it should be analyzed and taken into account, which could take a long time.
Referendums are elections in which voters do not elect representatives but participate in taking direct participation on some important issue of the country. As advantages, it is highlighted that the Referendum can be used to solve problems of a political nature, or the improvement of the governmental image, when it is too deteriorated in front of the popular collective. Another aspect that touches a possible disadvantage, has to do with the circumstance that can be used as a strategy or political weapon to satisfy political interests or ambitions of power. It has also been argued that this figure has a meaning called "zero sum", that is, where the majority wins everything and the minority loses everything, originating a tyranny of majorities, that have answered one or several questions about a specific issue and that in the case at hand, has to do with the end of the armed conflict, questions that are closed and must be answered with the yes or no.
Revocation of mandate, revocation of mandate or recall referendum (in English, recall election), is a procedure by which citizens can cease their public office to an elected official, before the end of their respective period, by direct vote or by collection of signatures, depending on the geographic or population dimensions. Those who propose a revocation mechanism argue that these have a disciplinary effect on elected officials, in which elected representatives will make fewer unpopular decisions if this may cause them to be more likely to be subject to a recall campaign. However, the same argument is also used against the recall: opponents argue that the recall completely undermines representative government as it causes elected officials fear to make unpopular but necessary decisions. Another argument in favor of direct democracy is that it provides voters with a continuous opportunity to make a democratic decision about who governs them, since they not only have the opportunity to elect the people who represent them every two to six years, but also to maintain a degree of control over the decision of its duration in the position. However, its opponents maintain that the mechanism of revocation could be used irresponsibly, and that this could be used by the political parties as a political weapon against the rival of the holders. The assertion that the revocation mechanism is being used as a political instrument was made by many Democrats against activists of Republican parties in connection with the recall in California in 2003.
