In this chapter’s discussion of new york’s ratifying convention, alexander hamilton takes issue with anti-federalist delegate melancton smith’s assertion that (as hamilton says) “a pure democracy, if it were practicable, would be the most perfect government.” what did smith—and hamilton—mean by “a pure democracy”? how does this compare to the type of democracy that represents the modern united states?

The answer to the question is: that a "pure democracy", better known today as direct democracy, is where the people of the nation have direct control over the process of law and decision-making, without having representatives who do that for them. As such, government, and all the passing of laws, depends on the direct power of the people, and not through intermediaries.

However, the United States founding fathers, including Alexander Hamilton, did not believe that the essence and nature of the United States would justify the use of this type of democracy, so they chose instead for another form called representative democracy. These two forms clash in that in one the people have the power to enact laws, and diectly choose how, and who, rules them, while in the other, it depends on representatives that are chosen by election by the people.

Although the world today does not have many countries who use the direct democracy system, or pure democracy, there are many that use a system called semi-direct democracy. Which means, the people still have the power to establish how they will be ruled and by whom, and have the power of referedum to support, or abolish, rules passed by law-making and ruling institutions, but they still use representatives.

hi there!

question - in the 1900s there were two competing views about the environment that often pitted industrialist and conservationist against one another. how were these two competing views demonstrated by the environmental policies of president roosevelt and president taft?

hope this : )