because of the people behid most of the thing
Population size and diversity can significantly influence the type of democracy a society adopts. In larger, more diverse populations, representative democracy is often favored, allowing elected officials to represent various interests and viewpoints. Conversely, smaller, more homogenous populations may be more inclined towards direct democracy, where citizens can participate directly in decision-making. Additionally, population dynamics, such as urbanization and demographic shifts, can shape political priorities and the effectiveness of democratic institutions.
We've pretty much always had a Representative Democracy. As to ask which is best, well there's nothing to compare it to as we've only had the one. The society is capitalist but, the government's been a representative democracy.
In a direct democracy the people act as decision makers on all major issues. This can be at the national level or the village level. Everything of importance is voted on by all of the people. In a representative democracy the people vote on representatives who act on their behalf either leading on issues or following the feelings of the people. There are problems with both approaches. A direct democracy must rely on someone to properly phrase the issue before the community. This phrasing is very important and people will not agree on the wording. A representative democracy suffers from the problem of the representatives following their own insights and intuition on topics versus voting for the precieved will of the people. Most units of government operate under some form of representative democracy.
Our system grew out of the British systems. A Representative democracy worked well in their class based society in which the "people" were not thought of as worthy or intelligent enough to represent themselves. Another reason is size. Today direct democracy for large populations is technically easy to accomplish. That was not the case in the past. Direct democracy failed when populations were large and issues complex. Representative democracy scales nicely.
The founding fathers didn't want to put the country in a position in which we need to worry about tyranny of the majority. This is why we have two Houses in Congress, and why we have the three main branches of federal government.
Civil society allows coordination of interests to maintain free flow of information, discussion, and association. These elements are an essential part of the political freedom necessary to allow a democracy to exist by holding the government accountable to the people and not vice-versa.
The rights and responsibilities of a citizen living in a representative democracy is to tell the "representer" what concerns them or is an issue, and they will try to get it solved :)
direct, representative
Just after World War 1, when the King left the country and social democratic as well as democratic leaders declared the republic (twice, the same time). Then, as you know, there was no such a thing like a democracy from 1933 on, until the Federal Republic of Germany was established in 1949. From then on again Germany had a representative democracy. By the way there was a small try of a democracy in 1848 when semi democratical institutions such as a parliament was established representing parts of the society. It lasted only for some time, maybe a year.
See the website: Democracy
Incest is a rare occurrence in modern society, with most people finding it morally and legally unacceptable. Instances of incest are typically isolated and not representative of the general population.
it doesn't