Question

why direct democracy is not possible in todays time

Answer 1

Answer:

$\huge{\pink{\underline{\fbox{Answer : }}}}$

Why is a direct democracy not possible these days?

Scan & pay on Amazon.

It is.

Direct democracy is certainly possible, in smaller communities. It’s typically seen at the city or county level, but generally no bigger than that. It should tell you something that the only country in the modern world that practices direct democracy is Switzerland, which is a relatively small country.

However, that’s not the question you are asking, are you? You’re asking why direct democracy isn’t common in the western world. Well, the answer to that comes down to two related things: population size, and efficiency.

With modern countries today, there is typically a much larger population. More than that, there is a much larger percentage of the population who are citizens. In Athens, the percentage of residents of the city-state who could actually vote was a very small amount, ranging in general from about 10–20%. This is in contrast to the United States, which has 94% of the residential population as citizens according to the Census Beureau report from 2012–2013. This doesn’t even take into account the increase in population since then. With the massive population, the task of finding all or even a majority of citizens to vote on the issues would be horrendously difficult. This factor makes it very difficult to have a direct democracy at the state or national level of many western countries.

In addition, there is the factor of time. The problem with direct democracy is that it often has the population vote directly on all bills, which is far more time-consuming, especially given the size of modern countries and the multitude of decisions that need to be taken every single day. The fact is that direct democracy is incredibly inefficient in terms of time, and only a few countries, such as the aforementioned Switzerland, are able to make it work. It makes far more sense for us to outsource the hours of debating to representatives who we can trust to make the decisions we would want.

Answer 2

It is.Direct democracy is certainly possible, in smaller communities. It’s typically seen at the city or county level, but generally no bigger than that. It should tell you something that the only country in the modern world that practices direct democracy is Switzerland, which is a relatively small country.However, that’s not the question you are asking, are you? You’re asking why direct democracy isn’t common in the western world. Well, the answer to that comes down to two related things: population size, and efficiency.With modern countries today, there is typically a much larger population. More than that, there is a much larger percentage of the population who are citizens. In Athens, the percentage of residents of the city-state who could actually vote was a very small amount, ranging in general from about 10–20%. This is in contrast to the United States, which has 94% of the residential population as citizens according to the Census Beureau report from 2012–2013. This doesn’t even take into account the increase in population since then. With the massive population, the task of finding all or even a majority of citizens to vote on the issues would be horrendously difficult. This factor makes it very difficult to have a direct democracy at the state or national level of many western countries.In addition, there is the factor of time. The problem with direct democracy is that it often has the population vote directly on all bills, which is far more time-consuming, especially given the size of modern countries and the multitude of decisions that need to be taken every single day. The fact is that direct democracy is incredibly inefficient in terms of time, and only a few countries, such as the aforementioned Switzerland, are able to make it work. It makes far more sense for us to outsource the hours of debating to representatives who we can trust to make the decisions we would want.