intergovernmental responses

1. The use and concept of direct democracy is still relatively new in today's political climate, but most importantly, it can either mitigate or exacerbate a particular issue that is at stake. Direct democracy, In essence, are the citizens in lieu of elected representatives responsibility, to formulate laws based on policy matters, ballot initiatives (used to propose new laws), and referendums (used to strike down new laws). Not at states contain this power, as very few states abide by this norm, separated from the federal government and the nationally upheld constitution. Authors of the textbook, Smith and Greenblatt (2017), expressed that, "Since all states believe in plenary power, the constitution presents a readily apparent depiction of representative democracy with an intentional veto of direct democracy," (Smith & Greenblatt, 2017, p. 60). Most notably, throughout the early 20th century, many states introduced direct democracy aspects to thier governance, while some states like California, imposed many propositions (e.g. proposition 13 which lessened property tax burdens), and hear many other concerns from the public outcry. One of our founding fathers, James Madison, who opposed direct democracy, demanded for a representative government, due to the suspicions and potential acts of treason that are associated with direct democracy.According to an article on the 8 principles of direct democracy, Kyburz and Schlegel (2019), "Direct democracy affects the legislative branch in two ways, by overriding the initiatives and referenda rendered by dishonest or corrupt politicians, or through the coercive act of citizens proposing a ballot proposition, that convinces politicians to legislate laws, due to public interest. Not to mention, direct democracy manipulates the connections of citizens with politicians, as it has been presented to raise citizens' intelligence and contentment with the political system," (Kyburz & Schlegel, 2019). Lastly, the distribution of authorities between federal and state governments is one that must be emphasized properly, to accurately comprehend the complexity of decision making, and where power should reside. Many states endorse one branch of government a preponderance of power, which may be in the hands of the legislature, executive, or general assembly, to begin a veto process. While I have to disagree with implementing direct democracy, It has yet to be proven successful in the long term, and the overall relations between federal and state governments, is viewed as uncooperative or misappropriated, factoring in the similarities of a utilitarian society.

2. Direct democracy which is also know as pure democracy, is when citizens are directly involved in the decision making process. IN a direct democracy citizens can vote on the actually issues instead of a party itself.  By doing this type of democracy, the people can vote to overrule a decision or make an update to a decision. In direct democracy it is believed that voting should be help more often. This can affect federal-state relations by causing tension. When the people can have the right to over rule decisions in their states, this can cause the state and federal relations to become strained. If the people of the state are voting completely different then the views of our federal government, then the federal government can begin to feel threatened. Another big affect is the fact that tyranny can occur with the majorities or the minorities. This is a very big concern. No one wants a tyranny on their hands as it can lead to a major problem.  Another major con I found while researching direct democracy is that dishonesty can ruin the whole system. Just like a normal federal election, the more money the opponents have the more corruption that can be bought. This obviously can affect the relations or federal and state governments as well as the citizens themselves. Unfortunationately, corruption is the biggest problem faced in our country and no matter what system is used it will always be an issue.

3. Direct democracy involves citizens directly participating in democratic decision-making. Direct democracies can function through citizen assemblies, referendums, and initiatives, in which voters vote on issues rather than politicians or parties. It's structure is the purest form of absolute freedom which gives individuals to self-fovern themselves. While the United States implements representative democracy through the United States Congress and state legislatures, two kinds of limited direct democracy are practiced at the state and municipal levels: ballot initiatives and binding referendums, and recall of elected officials.

Direct democracy examples:

· More Government Accountability: Direct democracy necessitates a high level of government accountability since it gives citizens a direct and unambiguous voice through their votes. 

· Full Government Transparency: ensures a greater degree of providing as much information as possible between people and their government.  

Direct democracy can also be seen as concept for federal relations. During terms of office, direct democracy also provides voters with additional and more precise tools of political control, such as initiative proposals and citizen-demanded referenda to reject new legislation or repeal current legislation. Legitimacy issues in referendum votes may develop if a bigger percentage of citizens do not participate but do not vote. Some jurisdictions respond by demanding a qualified majority in the form of turnout or approval quorums for a valid vote.

4. Direct democracy or pure democracy are "...forms of direct participation of citizens in democratic decision making, in contrast to indirect or representative democracy" (Britannica). Ballot intiatives and referendums are two examples of tools citizens would use to take part in direct democracy. Direct democracy does effect federal-state relations however the federal governments constitution was made in a way that purposely goes against the concept of direct democracy. Because of this, state goverments are usually effected the most by direct democracy. Federal and state government relations can become strained due to the heavy handed effect direct democracy can have on state government. Since the United States is a representative democracy, we elect government officials to take responsibility and and make descisions that we voted them in for. Because state governments can be effected more by direct democracy, the federal government can attempt to push an agenda while the state government(s) block it due to direct democracy. Due to the current political climate in the United States, I believe to worry about federal-state relations in regards to direct democracy is so waste time and energy. Extreme partisan beliefs that is deeply routed in federal and state government has trickled down to the average citizen. Because of this, direct democracy is rarely a card citizens consider playing and instead go all in on their partisan ideology which leads to elected officials holding great amounts of power and only having to run for office on a platform of a few mainstream ideas. This creates a massive skewed power dynamic between the citizens of the nation and the government officials. Most individuals in the United States do not even pay attention to the countless new policies and legislation being enacted and instead focus on mainstream ideas such as healthcare, social justice, and gun control among many others. Direct democracy although possible on paper, is not being utilized properly in todays political climate. In the end, the federal government only considers state government(s) as a roadblock of some kind to conquer.

5. First you would need to understand what direct democracy is, Which is when it gives the citizens direct participation in decision making in place of legeslative proxies. Direct democracy gives citizens the power to vote on and make ammendemnts to their state constituion through that of ballot intiatives and referendums. Citizens in a state live under two constitutions one is their state constitiution and the other is the U.S Constituition which share commonalities but also have their differences. Direct democracy does not exist on the federal level of government and depends on the state of which you live in however it can cause strain between state and federal relations. It would give citizens the right to overturn laws and rules if enough voted for it. It can also create a sense of polarization between the citizens of state when it comes to voting and can lead to certain groups of citizens attempting to garner support over a minority to push for an ammendent they may view as fair but the minority does not. From the article " The Promises and Dangers of Direct Democracy: A Historical Comparison" the author Marie Bolton states "Detractors argue on the contrary that direct democracy can lead to chaotic policy changes, irresponsible political decisions, and ironically an increased role of moneyed interests in writing ballot measures and influencing votes."  but on the other hand it can viewed as a safeguard of democracy if used correctly by an educated populace which within itself poses a question of what truely is an educated populace? What would happen if an uneducated populace was in control of a direct democracy would chaos truely ensue, would there be an increased role of "moneyed intrests" and "influencing voting" There seems to be an underlying reason of why the founding fathers wrote the consitituion the way they did and why we live in a representive democracy. I think without a guiding hand or an elected official at the helm of the ship it wouldn't neccesarily be a democracy but more of anarchy, factions of people trying to get what they want and influencing the rest to follow suit.