Blog Post 2: Direct vs. Indirect Democracy

In my opinion, the representative (American) model of democracy exemplifies a better way to govern than the direct (Athenian) model. The larger populations of countries in the 21st Century make direct democracy much more difficult to carry out due to the number of citizens. The total population of Athens and Attica around 400 BC was in the hundreds of thousands, which is significantly smaller than the current population of the United States, which hovers around 325 million. Another disadvantage of Athenian democracy was that non-citizens, including women, metics, and slaves, were not allowed to vote or take part in politics. This meant that over half of the population automatically did not have a say in government. Not only did they not have a say, but the women and slaves took on the labor and chores required by the farm and/or household while the men went off to participate in the Assembly.

In the American system of representative democracy, each state is represented equally through the Senate, while also giving each state representation based on population in the House of Representatives. Some may argue that representatives fail to carry out the policies favored by their constituents. Not all representatives vote in a consistent manner that represents the views of the majority of their constituents, but instead vote based on what they believe is right, just, and beneficial to the whole. For example, Republicans and Democrats although initially opposed, worked closely together during the passing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The citizens, however, if unhappy and displeased with their representative’s views and voting record, can elect a new representative during the next election cycle. It is also true that some members of the Assembly in Athens did not necessarily have the population’s best interests in mind, but were instead focused on advancing their own agendas. During the Threshold of Democracy reacting to the past activity, one speaker sought to convince the Assembly to make an alliance with Persia. She touted the economic benefits of such an alliance while her actual goal was to gain personal power. Not only may some Assembly speakers want to advance their own agendas, some may be ignorant on important political issues. For example, those who travel from the country into Athens to participate may be unaware of certain issues affecting Athens. Representatives today almost always receive high levels of education and training before taking on the role of deciding laws that will affect the entire nation, and possibly the entire world.

https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest.html

https://www.pbs.org/empires/thegreeks/educational/lesson1.html

https://www.uniteamerica.org/politicians_going_against_party

Lessons Learned from Gilmore Girls and Ancient Greece

On one of my all-time favorite television series, Gilmore Girls, a common scene is the weekly town meeting. During these town meetings, there is usually a set agenda of what must be discussed, but it is also seen as the time and place where people can address their own grievances. Anyone can attend and vote at these meetings. In a way, these weekly town meetings are a present-day form of the direct democracy founded in Ancient Athens. In Athens, there were no elected representatives as there are in the United States, and in a Gilmore Girls town meeting, everyone represents themselves. In both of these democracies, constituents never had to worry about disagreeing with how their representative votes—instead, they just cast their own vote.
For as great as the direct democracy on Gilmore Girls may seem, the town meeting scenes are generally comedic. Town members can never agree with each other, and the meetings become so chaotic from so many opinions, that the initial issue often becomes misconstrued and never resolved. For example, in one town meeting, the issue of whether or not a newcomer can sell produce from a table in the park (instead of a kiosk) is resolved with the vote “Say aye if you agree that you would not like this man to open a bookstore. We’re all in agreement? Meeting adjourned.” In this fictional case, a direct democracy is so unorganized, and inefficient that it is comedic. Similarly, while the success of democracy in Athens is no laughing matter, in terms of organization and efficiency, it falls short of today’s representative democracy.
Today, many people complain that representative democracies fail to truly represent the views of constituents. Politicians in power are often tasked with the difficult decision of voting based on their own beliefs (or the beliefs of the party that they wish to receive support from as they run in elections) in mind, or based on the beliefs of the majority of their constituents (who elected them into office) in mind. We might raise the argument that this would not be an issue in a direct democracy like Athens. In a direct democracy, each eligible individual can solely vote with their own beliefs in mind. However, this does not mean that one may not find themselves in the position of potentially compromising their values in a direct democracy. When we did the Reacting to the Past, my character, Rhinon, was an indeterminate. As such, my beliefs were not really going to be heard very well in the assembly. I did not have the support of other votes from members who shared my beliefs (I was not a faction member). In order to make my voice heard, I had to make compromises with other factions that would support some of my positions, if I was willing to do the same. Similarly, compromises were even made between factions. On the last issue, that is the payment of assembly-goers, the Radical Democrats and Moderate Democrats had to compromise with each other to pass the measure, even though they opposed each other greatly on the issue of what to do with supporters of the Thirty Tyrants.
Regardless of whether or not it’s a democracy where you represent yourself, or where others represent you, compromises are going to have to be made to bring about change. One does not need to fully compromise their own values, but they do have to understand that if each individual perspective on an issue was heard, an accurate vote would never be cast. It would be like the Gilmore Girls’ town meetings, where people spend too much time arguing over an issue than actually voting on it.
This does not mean that one has to be a diehard supporter of their elected representatives. While there are only 535 seats in Congress, you do not have to sit in one of these seats to bring about change. On a local level, be active in politics. Contact legislatures who have views that you feel do not represent the views of their constituents, and inform them of this—they are going to have to listen to your voice if they want to be elected again. Support candidates who you believe will accurately, and fairly represent the views of their constituents once elected. And if your representatives fail to represent you in office, this does not mean that you cannot still have a voice on the issue—protest, or join a march if you believe that an important issue is not getting the attention and action that it deserves. With representative democracies, there maintains the necessary organization to allow for an efficient government, but it still allows for people’s voices to be heard.
Final word count: 780

Citation for quote:
Sherman-Palladino, A. (Executive Producer). 2003. Gilmore Girls [Television series]. Burbank, CA: Warner Bros. Studios

Blog Post #2: Representative Democracy vs. Direct Democracy

Sam Heideman

Prof. Sagstetter

HH215 Section 2002

2 OCT 18

Blog Post 2

I personally believe that the current representative form of democracy is superior to the Athenian’s direct democracy. During our RTTP exercise, the class saw how difficult it was to decide how to define who was allowed to vote and then how to incite those capable of voting to actually turn out for their civic duty. A representative form of democracy serves as a streamline system for a government that is highly efficient when running as it should be. In theory, this form allows those who have been elected to represent their communities and states to make decisions in a manner than is faster than a direct democracy which requires votes from all citizens. Instead of millions of people taking the time out of their days to vote, this allows those who we hire to represent us to make educated decisions. The representative form of democracy is also highly beneficial to those who choose to vote AND those who choose not to. For those who choose to vote, this allows them to vote into office someone who will align with their political and ethical views, ensuring that choices made by the representative are decisions made from the views of the people they represent. For those who choose not to vote, the representative system allows them to be indirectly represented by those from their district or region. Most people in a district tend to have similar political views so their ideas are still supported even though they did not choose those who represent them. Representative democracy also helps ensure that the minority has a voice in decisions made for our country. Instead of having millions of votes outweighing the thousands who have a differing view, representatives in Congress all have an equal say so those who are elected by the minority will have some ground to stand upon. Some problems with the direct democracy is that some people who vote are doing so without any knowledge of the legislation they are deciding upon. They simply show up to the polls and make decisions on the spot without all of the necessary knowledge in front of them. This is almost eliminated by a representative democracy because voters tend to elect competent representatives who understand the process to pass or turn down valuable legislation. This is their job, something that they get paid to do so they are supposed to do it well.

 

Bibliography

“Crystal Lombardo.” Samsung Galaxy Blog, 28 Jan. 2016, thenextgalaxy.com/the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-direct-democracy/.

 

Superior Model of Democracy

Image result for representative democracy

I believe that the American model of democracy is significantly better than the Athenian model of democracy. In the ancient Aegean, Athenians were able to represent themselves at the assembly. While this sounds beneficial, it also comes with heavy cost. Only those who are able to make the trip to the assembly were able to be properly represented in the voting and representation process. Many poor and impoverished citizens who had the right to be at the assembly were simply not able to make it to the meetings, due to these conditions. With the American model, we elect officials who make those decisions for us.

As mentioned in the prompt, “sometimes elected representatives fail to carry out the policies favored by their constituents.” While this may be true, our model of democracy has accounted for this possibility. Because of this, our representatives do not serve life-long terms. They are up for re-election every few years, depending on the office that they hold. By using this method, we ensure the entire population is represented in some fashion, even if it not the direct way that it was conducted in Athens.

Admittedly, there are faults with the representative system that we hold. The largest flaw, in my opinion, is the practice of gerrymandering. Gerrymandering occurs when a party in power redraws district lines to favor their party in the upcoming elections. For these reasons, it is almost impossible to swing the seats of a state’s representatives in the House. This also does not ACCURATELY represent the constituents of a state. Some states, like Iowa, take the politics out of congressional district line markings. Every census, Iowa will hire three mapmakers to seal themselves off and draw uniformed districts based on population only. No parties, election results, or congressmen or congresswomen’s addresses are considered during these drawings. As a result, Iowa is accurately represented in the House, and I believe this is a practice that could improve our model.

I also want to propose a situation that supports the argument for the American model. We are currently in an armed conflict with Syria, as we provide humanitarian to their citizens while their government is oppressive. As a result, war is a constant possibility. If we followed an Athenian model of democracy, our government could actually send out a message saying, “Text this number by 10 p.m. to vote for war on Syria!” and this could be a legitimate way to make decisions. Each person would get their own part in the decision making process, but this is not applicable as the average person is not educated enough on the benefits and consequences of such a decision. Instead, our elected representatives are allowed to make these decisions, as we put our trust in them that they are educated and fair enough to do what is right. Ultimately, the applicability of the American model tilts the scale too much to ever consider the Athenian model.

Word Count: 492

Sources:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2013/12/08/iowa-redistricting-takes-partisanship-out-mapmaking/efehCnJvNtLMIAFSQ8gp7I/story.html

More Like the Swiss?

The United States is a representative democracy, and has been for centuries. With such a strong worldly presence and a large population, it is hard to envision the nation with any other type of government. This sentiment is echoed through the fact that many nations are either a representative democracy or a hybrid of it. When examining the reasons behind the current system, it dates back to the Founding Fathers, who feared the consequences of a radically direct democracy, and rightfully so.

A representative democracy is, in general, better suited for dealing with a large electorate. The fact of the matter is that, while a direct democracy works well with a smaller population, it gets exponentially harder to maintain as the number of people increases. When each voice must be heard individually, it becomes much more work for the government. Time and money can be lost at the expense of entertaining a direct democracy, especially when only 55.5% of the United States’ population even votes (“2016 November General Election Turnout Rates.”). This low percentage may be variety of reasons, ranging from a busy schedule to sincere apathy. The beauty of a representative democracy, though, is that, even with a low voter turnout, the nonparticipants are still represented through elected officials.

The representative system additionally prioritizes the needs of the group more so than the needs of the individual. It is only natural for citizens to vote for proposals that benefit themselves, neglecting to think of others and the nation itself. This is evident with Switzerland, one of the only countries still with a direct democracy. In 2009, the populous voted to ban the construction of minarets adjacent to mosques, preventing them from getting any ventilation (“Swiss Ban Building of Minarets on Mosques.”). This vote excluded the Swiss Muslim population, and handicapped their ability to worship comfortably. Additionally, even if not for self-interest, a direct democracy would allow for people who do not completely understand issues to still vote on them. The average American may not have the time or tools to make a well-informed vote, which is why a representative democracy works better. An elected official, whose only focus is making large-scale decisions, is better suited for this civic responsibility.

The direct democracy of Ancient Athens was, in itself, flawed. Although advertised as being open to all, it was in fact barred from slaves, women and foreigners born on Greek soil. It was also off-limits to the exiled, which was a growing list since there was an annual vote on who to banish. Votes were taken by submitting stones or through a show of hands, methods that were easy to manipulate, hard to document, and not necessarily anonymous. While these elements are considered undemocratic by today’s standards, it is undeniable that they paved the way for modern politics. While the representative democracy still prevails, it would not be what it is today without the Greeks and their rudimentary direct democracy.

The Minds of the Masses

The most significant similarity between the American and Athenian system is the behavior of political parties in politics. Political parties are comprised of three defining characteristics: competing groups with a small number of prominent leaders and a substantial number of followers, a group that shows loyalty and stability, and groups that compete for a majority vote that would allow them to impose their will. Athens was controlled by the desire of the masses. Whatever party gained the most support of the masses would capture the majority vote. A good example of the existence of political parties in Athens occurred during the reconciliation agreement of 403. Following the defeat of Sparta and the fall of the Thirty Tyrants, radical democrats, largely supported by farmers, poorer members of society, and those who fought directly under Thrasybulus, and the oligarchs, mainly followed by wealthy, educated aristocrats, were contesting over the granting of amnesty towards the Tyrant’s supporters. While both parties had large followings, the oligarchs were ultimately successful in their mission and the agreement was passed.   It is clear that the two major parties in today’s politics leave little to no room for smaller parties to gain support. Unlike our current political system, the Athenian Democracy was direct, such that there were no representatives. This encouraged voter participation and encouraged political candidates to be better politicians. Today, this type of voting is mirrored in the popular vote for presidential elections. The candidate with the majority of votes is awarded the popular vote.

Because Athenian political institutions followed the democratic principle, people did not just vote in accordance with their leaders. Presently, this phenomenon can be seen as party lines are becoming blurred and citizens are, more frequently, voting for candidates outside of their previously stated party. In Athens, a good politician, otherwise known as a rhetor, would require political skill, rhetorical gifts, charisma, and a solid reputation. The 1960 Nixon- JFK presidential debate is a clear example of how important these skills still are in politics; a candidate needs to be well rounded and well versed in public interactions and political knowledge. JFK won the debate because he was so much more personable and relaxed on camera when compared to Nixon. The influence of voters encourages all political parties to maintain positive leadership and present promising candidates.

In summation, political parties have always played a large role in politics. Maintain a loyal follower-ship is an integral part of securing a political victory. Political parties compete for the attention and favor of voters in order to come out on top.

 

 

Work Cited

Hansen, Mogens Herman. “Political Parties in Democratic Athens?” 2014. PDF File.

 

WC: 442

Blog Post #2 – Representative vs Direct Democracy

Both the United States of America and Ancient Athens represent nations with democracies. The American representative model is a much better and safer way to govern. The Athenians had a very direct model—assembly-goers would directly vote on topics and that is how judgement would be passed. This is a very raw and literal form of democracy which truly embodies the idea of “power to the people.” Any citizen, no matter how educated they might be, would be voting on the most important of issues directly. That might sound a bit sketchy, and that is because it was. Many historical records recall moments when the Athenian democracy passed judgement that was questionable and quite harmful to their nation. In Hellenica book one chapters six and seven, Xenophon recorded a great example of poor judgement, the trial of the Athenian Generals following the naval battle of Arginusae. When they retreated in bad weather, the Generals decided not to save the crews of the ships that had been sunken. The mob that was the Athenian Assembly labeled them as cowards and blamed them for the deaths of those soldiers, sentencing eight experienced generals to death. In the middle of the Peloponnesian war, the Athenian Assembly discarded the majority of its generals, the leaders of its military. This is a great example as to why the Athenian direct model of democracy can prove to be dangerous and unstable. If educated political professionals were put in charge of the issue, they would have been more rational, due to the obvious consequences that follow executing all of your Military leaders. When the people are directly involved in voting on important decisions, the power of the mob can take over too easily.

The instability of the Athenian democracy led to development of the representative model. Naturally, the representative model comes with its own issues. Once an official is elected, they are free to vote how they wish, despite the ideology they might have campaigned. However when comparing the direct and representative models of democracy, it is clear that despite its problems, representative democracy is a much more sensible and effective form of government. The people are able to vote on who will represent them and make their decisions, and at the same time it ensures that educated political professionals are making the decisions. The American model does not end in such radical and unpredictable judgments as the Athenian model did. The representative form of democracy employed by the United States is a much better way to govern.

Wikisource contributors, “Hellenica (Xenophon)/Book 1/Chapter 6,” Wikisource, https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.phptitle=Hellenica_(Xenophon)/Book_1/Chapter_6&oldid=3769175 (accessed September 30, 2018).

421 Words

Blog Post #2 Option 1

The idea of Democracy in both Athenian government and modern day US government falls upon the similar pillars of the public having a voice and equality among its citizens. However, there are outlying differences between the two. The main difference I would like to focus on is the civility and strength of the structure of government, and the procedures taken to handle adverse situations. Thousands of years have molded and formed the democracy we know today and as we have progressed socially and as we have developed human rights, some of the steps taken in Athenian democracy to handle these potentially world shifting swings in policy are much different than how they are handled today.

Thousands of years ago, the people of the Athens were always concerned as to whether or not an overthrow in authority was coming. In the case of the Mytilenean revolt in 428 BC, there was genuine disagreement over whether or not the Mytileneans should gain control of all of Lesbos or not. Having been prepared for a revolt even before the Peloponnesian War, the Mytileneans were ready to challenge the Athenian democracy head on, with a fleet of their own, as well as an established military. While their revolt ended up failing, the idea that at any point someone could be plotting to take over the government is something we simply do not have in today’s society. The US democracy is one of the strongest in the world and the thought of being challenged by a state or group of people is outrageous and virtually impossible. While this is heavily dependent upon the faith in the structure of our democracy, the sheer size and strength of our military would never allow this to happen. One could compare the Civil War to an Athenian democracy in terms of the fragility of their respected systems but speaking in modern day, something like this could not happen.

Another major difference in the two democracies is handling the critics and wrongdoers involved in government. In Athenian government one could be exiled or even killed for going against the state, whereas in modern day US government, those who commit crimes are handled in a more civil manner. This falls heavily on the progression of human history and how we as a society have developed in handling human rights over time. Looking at something like Watergate, a situation where our own president committed crimes against the US, Nixon was still afforded the opportunity to step down and live out his life in a respectable manner. He wasn’t exiled or killed, he just paid for his crimes in a different way.

While there are certainly similarities between Athenian and US democracy, as a whole, the two have remarkable differences that make them unique to their own time period. The idea of strength of government and civility in process are too large to overlook when comparing the two.

  • Oliver Smith
  • Word Count (485)

How Free Speech is Fundamental to Democracies

The most significant similarity between the American and Athenian system is the right to free speech. Both the American and Athenian system rely on the exchange of ideas and opinions from all groups of people. Without the ability for people with diverse ideas to speak freely to each other, democracy would fail. Debating and the exchange of ideas between citizens and political leaders in the American Democratic system is how many people decide who they should elect into office. Athenian Democracy also utilized the right to free speech by allowing any citizen to speak during the assembly. Although both the American and Athenian systems of democracy are different in structure, they both embrace one of the most fundamental ideas of democracy- the right to free speech.

Athenian Democracy gave the right for citizens to use free speech during the assembly. Meaning, any citizen was allowed to speak at any time. This allowed for many people to voice their opinions into a large audience. Many times, citizens used emotion and exaggerated facts in order gain votes by charming the assembly members.  It was important for the average Athenian to voice their opinion and contribute to their government because “freedom needed, in addition to mere liberation, the company of other men who were in the same state, and it needed a common public space to meet them—a politically organized world, in other words, into which each of the free men could insert himself by word and deed” (Arendt 147). Democracy rests in the hands of the people. A great example of when the assembly voted on if they should pay citizens to attend the assembly. Many groups opposed this issue (such as the Solonian Aristocrats), but the issue eventually passed the assembly. The people needed representation across the assembly, and by having the right to speak at any time showed the people that the people are in control.

Furthermore, the American Democratic system allows its citizens to voice their opinion on issue. A great example of this on the one of the lowest levels of government are city town hall and school board meetings. Many of these meetings have opportunities for citizens to voice their opinions on topics such as taxes, and how the government spends its money. Although we vote to have representatives on our school boards and city government, we still have the opportunity to voice our opinion at these meetings which is very similar to how Athenians ran their democracy. Speaking from personal experience, I know firsthand how riled people can get at local town hall meetings. Often times, a police officer shows up in case people get out of hand. Giving people the opportunity to speak is a fundamental right of democracy. People would not be able to voice their opinions without it. Because a democratic government is ran by the people, democracy would not exist without giving people the right to speak.

Arendt, Hannah. Between past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political Thought. New York: Penguin, 1978.

https://www.ancient.eu/Athenian_Democracy/

Democracy Needs a Buffer

By MIDN 3/C Ionatan A. Soule, USN

Churchill once said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”  I would agree and add that what makes it the worst is its inherent messiness.  By allowing the populace to participate in the arduous task of legislating, one can immediately see the difficulty that will arise come the time to agree on what a law should include, agree on how the law should be worded, and agree on how the law should be implemented and interpreted.  When it’s hard for a group of five friends to make plans to go see a movie, then how can anyone expect democracy, where the voice of every single person can be heard on every single topic, to be efficiently implemented?  Though potential problems are evident, democracy is still so much better than other forms of government—dictatorship, monarchy, oligarchy—because it does allow for the will of the people to be heard.  The question then is how it should be implemented.  The two major options are a direct democracy and a representative democracy.  Of these two, a representative democracy is much better than a direct democracy because it still allows for the voice of the people to be heard, while providing a buffer from mob rule through its indirect nature.

Athenians pioneered democracy in the form of a direct democracy.  On paper, this form was the best because it allowed each individual to have a voice.  Unfortunately, when put into practice it quickly ran into issues.  The primary issue was mob rule—whatever the people wanted they got.  One example is when people began demanding compensation to attend to their civic duty of participating and voting in government.  Of course, the voter would agree to that proposition.  Unfortunately, this created a slippery slope and before long, Athenians were getting paid to go to their own festivals.  This ruined Athens’s economy and left no money for other governmental functions such as self-defense and public works.

The Founding Fathers of the United States solved the issue of mob rule through the creation of a representative democracy.  The people would vote for representatives who would then go make the decisions in government.  Not only did this solution inhibit mob rule while still giving the people a voice, but it also guaranteed that the people making the decisions would be educated to perform their civic duties.  All of this helps guarantee the most populous participation in the most efficient manner.  One pitfall to a representative democracy is that the representative ignores his constituents because he is, after all, independent of them once voted into office.  Though this could allow a representative to go “rogue” and do whatever he/she wants, it also could be beneficial to the government.  If the US mob wanted to get paid to vote, then the representative could refuse to heed their wishes knowing that it could potentially ruin the economy and thus serve as a buffer.  As long as the representative puts the good of the whole at the forefront of his objectives, then representative democracy is the best form of government there is.

Word count: 515