The Founders universally opposed democracy--we are a Republic, not a Democracy, which means, by definition, that we have a representative form of government not a direct vote. Alexander Hamilton said that "democracy was the surest path to tyranny".
The Framers were afraid of "mob rule", which is when the majority of people pursue a course of action in direct opposition to the rights of minorities. By winnowing the pool of voters through a representative system, the Framers believed that they could limit the people who vote on policy to a subset of more educated gentlemen who would not allow for mob rule.
In 1789 a large percentage of the country was foreign born, didn't speak English, and the framers felt they didn't understand how a democratic government worked. At the time the only voter was a white male over 21 who owned landed so there never has been a direct democracy. Washington felt that only through education could a democracy be maintained.
The framers of the constitution leaned toward a Republican system of government. They felt that a republic led to indirect authority where people can elect political figures to make some decisions for them instead of all of them.
german prefer the use of migrant labour because of the way of adiministration she used in her colonies which is direct rule,direct rule associated with the opening of plantation which require constant supply of labour.therefore migrant labour was seen as the better solution.
The past tense of prefer is preferred.
The people in Canada prefer the term First Nations. In the United States, some prefer American Indian and some prefer native Anmerica and some prefer the name of their tribal group. For example, many Navajo say: I'm not Indian, I'm Navajo or I'm Dine'.
monarchy
The concept of government that the framers favored was the republic form. This was the form of government that would allow the people to appoint those they wanted to represent them into government positions.
Because you're an idiot. Or you live in a place small enough and with few enough issues for it to be practical. Direct democracy rapidly becomes unwieldy for any government much larger than a small town.
John Locke preferred a constitutional government where power is limited by a written constitution. He believed in a system where the ruler's authority is derived from the consent of the governed, promoting individual rights and the protection of private property.
because the republicanism is better than pure democracy
The theoretical advantages of direct democracy are quite appealing:Dramatic reduction or elimination of the power of political parties.Reduction of the influence of special interests (corporations and labor unions).Reduction of political "horse-trading" and "pork-barrel" deals.As a result, someone who belongs to a majority group would prefer pure democracy. However, there are several weaknesses of direct democracy:There is no incentive to protect minority rights, property rights or personal liberty ("tyranny of the majority"). This is sometimes summarized by the aphorism (misattributed to Benjamin Franklin), "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch".The public is frequently ill-informed on complex issues.Public opinion is easily manipulated by the media.The public is susceptible to popular delusions ("the madness of crowds").Public opinion is unduly influenced by recent events and ignorant of the lessons of history.The near-term self-interests of the public, even though they may form a majority, may be contrary to the long-term best interest of the population as a whole (similar to the "tragedy of the commons"). Some would argue that this is true of representative democracy, as well.
Depends if you prefer the direct or indirect approach.
The framers of the constitution leaned toward a Republican system of government. They felt that a republic led to indirect authority where people can elect political figures to make some decisions for them instead of all of them.
Yes. In fact all prefer bright but not direct light, except Earth Star and Pineapple Dyckia, which both prefer bright direct sun.
Mostly. The people in a party pick their candidate, and the people of the nation pick which candidate they prefer. Of course strictly speaking we don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic - in a direct democracy every citizen votes on policy and takes turns serving as legislative, executive, and judicial figures (a la Athens in ancient greece). Of course that doesn't scale up very well, and a republic is an acceptable alternative.
In my opinion I prefer the free market economy.Because we live in a capitalistic democracy, I have grown accustomed to the market economy.I much prefer a market economy over a planned economy.
They prefer to not be in direct sunlight.
In england, the frog is the forest fire representative. ( like our Smokey the Bear). But I prefer turtles.