Prompt: Which type of democracy is more effective in protecting individual rights? There are two different types of democracies; a direct democracy and a representative democracy. In a direct democracy, all of the citizens cast votes on governmental issues and laws. In a representative democracy, the people elect a group of representatives and give said representatives the responsibility to make laws and conduct government. On November 22, 1787, James Madison published Federalist 10. The Federalist Papers were a series arguing for the official confirmation of the United States Constitution. A small section of Madison’s essay particularly focuses on stating that there is nothing a direct democracy can do to mend the ones in factions (a number
…show more content…
This is because the majority put family or one’s wellbeing first and hardly ever consider or think, “How will this affect everyone else?” until it is too late to change anything. A representative democracy creates laws for the good and protection of the people. Because the average individual voter would most likely put his or her needs first, the idea of a law, brought on by the people, must benefit everyone positively. If a law were to only cause benefits for a small group rather than everyone as a whole, including minorities, the law cannot be passed. This leads into how a representative democracy also protects the rights of minority groups against the …show more content…
The feelings and lives of minority groups can be overlooked a lot and obliviously, so in retaliation, a representative democracy follows a written constitution that specifically protects these very rights from being completely unrepresented or overridden by the majority. A law must benefit everyone as a whole and the framers of the U.S. Constitution feared the passions of the majority would lead to bad choices that would endanger certain unalienable rights. If every individual person were to cast a vote, such as in a direct democracy, the passions of the people would become the drive of actions rather than what is right or wrong. The more terrifying point of a direct democracy is that at any given time, a majority of people can be as evil and oppressive as the worst sort of dictator and the values of said group could put certain people into danger. If this were to happen, the amount of conflict that would unfold because of the people acting on their opinions, beliefs, and values is unimaginable and would be truly momentous, thus, why the representatives consider how a law would affect everyone before any permanent decisions are made. With a representative democracy, the passions of the individuals are somewhat more contained and it makes decision-making a lot easier. Without having to worry about conflict going on between the citizens, the representatives can focus
This is because the majority put family or one’s wellbeing first and hardly ever consider or think, “How will this affect everyone else?” until it is too late to change anything. A representative democracy creates laws for the good and protection of the people. Because the average individual voter would most likely put his or her needs first, the idea of a law, brought on by the people, must benefit everyone positively. If a law were to only cause benefits for a small group rather than everyone as a whole, including minorities, the law cannot be passed. This leads into how a representative democracy also protects the rights of minority groups against the …show more content…
The feelings and lives of minority groups can be overlooked a lot and obliviously, so in retaliation, a representative democracy follows a written constitution that specifically protects these very rights from being completely unrepresented or overridden by the majority. A law must benefit everyone as a whole and the framers of the U.S. Constitution feared the passions of the majority would lead to bad choices that would endanger certain unalienable rights. If every individual person were to cast a vote, such as in a direct democracy, the passions of the people would become the drive of actions rather than what is right or wrong. The more terrifying point of a direct democracy is that at any given time, a majority of people can be as evil and oppressive as the worst sort of dictator and the values of said group could put certain people into danger. If this were to happen, the amount of conflict that would unfold because of the people acting on their opinions, beliefs, and values is unimaginable and would be truly momentous, thus, why the representatives consider how a law would affect everyone before any permanent decisions are made. With a representative democracy, the passions of the individuals are somewhat more contained and it makes decision-making a lot easier. Without having to worry about conflict going on between the citizens, the representatives can focus