Should all important decisions be decided by direct democracy?

Direct democracy is when everyone can vote on how the country is run. I support this motion because if the public is involved in the decision, indirect democracy is a bad choice because of how it could impact people. Direct democracy means that people can have a choice on something that is going to have an impact on their lives.

Direct democracy would also mean that people can agree on the decision that is being made and indirect democracy could mean that the vote is unfair on the people that it could impact. Anything unimportant is less likely to have an impact on other people, anything that affects the government can be used with indirect democracy because it doesn’t affect society, making it fair.

Brexit is a direct democracy because everyone got to vote on whether we should leave or remain in the European Union (EU). This would be unfair if it was indirect democracy because leaving the EU would impact almost everyone in the UK and some individuals would find it unfair that particular people get to decide on what happens.

Another reasonable example of direct democracy is when the American society got to vote for their new president. The reason why this is direct democracy is because that everyone got to have their say on who they wanted by voting and that no-one was unable to vote for the decision that was being made. If this particular decision was decided with indirect democracy, this could affect a lot of people because of whatever their president does could impact the American society and that this would be outrageously unfair for everyone.

In conclusion, I therefore think that the most fair and equal way of deciding important decisions should be made with direct democracy, as the most important decisions have the biggest effect on everyone and therefore they should have a say on something that could affect them or even change their lives.

Comments (0)

You must be logged in to post a comment