Direct Democracy Disadvantages

A democratic republic is the best form of government to protect individual freedoms versus a pure democracy, as expressed in Federalist 10. Despite the direct citizen participation in a pure democracy, there are two reasons why it does not efficiently govern a country: lack of authority to control factions and the chaotic legislation process. Factions, whether it be a minority or majority, can have positive and negative effects on a government. In a direct democracy, the majority will always dominate the vote of the minority, and the opinions of the minority are neglected, therefore neglecting their liberties. For example, if there are three options on a ballot, and one receives forty percent of the vote and the other two both receive thirty

As a result, the majority in a pure democracy has complete power, and can theoretically shut out the minority in legislation. However, the representatives in a republic speak for the majority and minority opinions and can reason out the best decision for the country as a whole, without resorting to their personal beliefs. The strong majority factions are broken up in a republic by the process of electing the representatives that would have a moral and patriotic character. The obnoxious factious representatives are filtered out and replaced with people who are worthy of making decisions to benefit the country as a whole. Therefore, a republic can manage faction better than a direct democracy. A republic is a more favorable form of government compared to a pure democracy because of the bias of the voters and chaotic process. In his essay, Madison states that a person cannot be his own judge because he would have a bias judgement, so the outcome would result in favor of himself (Federalist 10 3). This idea is easily understood when used in a situation such as this, but it also compares