Democracy is, by nature, inefficient and flawed because not everyone is going to agree completely on everything. Too many unique experiences create too many conflicting viewpoints. Decision-making is messy, but that is the sacrifice society makes for participation in government. Representative democracy is more of a balance. Much like society sacrifices efficiency to have its voice heard, representation sacrifices participation for a level of efficiency. Representative democracy is the better form of governing because it provides a functioning government that still represents factions’ situations and experiences.
For example, this year the United States experienced “the longest ever shutdown of the U.S. government,” because Congress and the President could not agree on the government budget (Wagner et al.). While representative democracy may not allow everyone to vote directly on major issues like the government budget, it sacrifices that participation for a level of efficiency. If 536 people shut the government down for a month over one issue, it would be inoperable if 325 million people had to agree on every decision the government makes. According to CNN, “air traffic delays at airports… played an important role in President Trump’s decision to back down — at least temporarily — on his insistence of wall funding to reopen the government,” (Wagner et al.). A single disagreement caused problems across the US in government facilities like airports. Direct democracy would result in large-scale disputes such as these daily; it could cripple US infrastructure. While it is not completely efficient, representative democracy represents many different factions while still maintaining some level of functionality.
Not all 325 million people would be participating in a direct democracy either, of course, as voter participation is low even with a representative democracy. The Pew Research Center stated, “137.5 million Americans voted in the 2016 presidential election… Overall voter turnout – defined as the share of adult U.S. citizens who cast ballots – was 61.4% in 2016,” (Krogstad and Lopez). In representative democracy, the public votes on fewer issues than the government handles, yet not all those who can participate vote on even this smaller number of the most important issues. This is the advantage of a representative democracy. Even when a large portion of the public is not involved, there is still someone representing them involved full-time. For direct democracy to represent everyone, everyone must participate all the time. With a representative democracy, only the majority of people must participate some of the time, but they receive representation all of the time. It is possible, however, for representatives to change their minds on issues, misrepresenting constituents. This is why participation in what voters directly decide is crucial. They decide whom they trust to make decisions with which they will agree.
This decision is the most valuable and important of political decisions Americans make: who will represent them? The average American is probably not qualified to write out a budget for the entire US bureaucracy, something they would have to understand in direct democracy where they would vote on the subject personally. With representative democracy, however, Americans possess a choice of whom they believe is qualified to make these decisions, and will do so in a manner with which they would agree. In this manner, representative democracy selects those whom Americans want to make their decisions, allowing those who are qualified to make those complex decisions in a manner with which their constituents would agree.
Democracy is imperfect. Not everyone can participate all of the time, so the theory that democracy represents everyone is false. It does not represent everyone. It represents those who actively participate. Thus, representative democracy is a better method of governing than direct democracy. Direct democracy allows too many conflicting views to prohibit progress, and only those who are able to participate full time are able to influence the most important decisions, decisions they may not even be qualified to make. Representative democracy sacrifices a little bit of that opportunity for everyone to participate to resolve these issues, and create a government that balances functionality and efficiency with representation.
-Nathan Forrest
Words: 597
Krogstad, Jens Manuel, and Mark Hugo Lopez. “Black voter turnout fell in 2016, even as a record number of Americans cast ballots.” Pew Research Center, 12 May 2017, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/12/black-voter-turnout-fell-in-2016-even-as-a-record-number-of-americans-cast-ballots/. Accessed 20 Feb. 2019.
Wagner, Meg, et al. “The Government Shutdown Is Over.” CNN Politics, Cable News Network, 25 Jan. 2019, http://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/government-shutdown-month-2019/index.html. Accessed 20 Feb. 2019.
The West in the Pre-Modern World 
I agree on the basic merits of representative democracy and its advantage over direct democracy; on the matter of voting participation, never-mind the 64% turnout for national elections, that for local elections often drops to near 25%. However I would venture the government shutdown is a poor example to offer as support. Unanimity of Congress is not required to pass a budget, nor would it be under a direct democracy. In either case, the most votes needed to pass would be sixty percent. Now, the budget plan passed both House and Senate late in 2018, but failed only because the president refused to sign it. The government then shut down due to this, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s refusal to field any bill the president would be unlikely to pass. Looking at the voting lines from the two budget proposals that went to vote in the Senate in late January, the GOP bill went down 50-47, while the Democratic bill lost 52-44. Thus, the particular rules of passing bills in the Senate, combined with the president effectively holding the nation hostage via its own democratic processes, are the reasons the shutdown happened. Polling throughout the period shows a majority of the American people were against the shutdown. Polling inaccuracies aside, a direct democracy would logically have ended the shutdown before our representative democracy did.
–Tom Vilinskis
LikeLike
Democracy is imperfect, true. And representative democracy seems more efficient than direct democracy. But at the same time, representative democracy would be easier to corrupt. The Representatives and Senators might go into office with the goal of making the lives of the people better, but that often changes quickly when they instead focus on campaigning for office again. According to Newsweek, congressmen spend less than half their time in office actually making changes to benefit the people. Instead, they focus their energies on being re-elected to office. At the same time, districts are often gerrymandered to give a particular political group more voice in one area. Representative democracies represent the people, but is it really in a fair manner? Less people making decisions means there are less people to corrupt. Not to use clichés, but shady back door deals are a thing that do occur. Congressman, some, not all, do occasionally make deals to benefit themselves and their position in Congress over what their party might actually support. All this to say, you’re right, the democracy isn’t perfect, but more serious consequences come when a representative democracy messes up.
https://www.newsweek.com/why-do-congressmen-spend-only-half-their-time-serving-us-357995
-Moira Camacho
Word Count: 189
LikeLike