What are the advantages and disadvantages of a direct democracy?

Advantages:

Initiatives, 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.

Disadvantages:

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.

Explanation:

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is

it was douglas macarthur..