What were the Framers of the Constitution views on direct democracy?

Answer 1

The Founding Fathers realized that direct democracy could not work on such a large scale as the population of the newly formed nation. Hence, the whole idea of a "democracy" and a "republic" were very frightening at the time, for many worried that the country would be unstable and falter to despots and corruption, like they saw happen in Rome during the time of Cicero leading to Julius Casear, Marc Antony, and Augustus Caesar. Therefore, several founders, such as Alexander Hamilton, advocated for a strong central government and even a monarch (with George Washington as King, something which he rejected with passion).

Today, we look back at this and scorn such anti-democracy ideas, but it is important to understand the context in which people like Hamilton were coming from. The idea of a democracy was completely radical and hard to fathom actually working. Although, technically, England had experienced a democratic revolution in their Civil War, the British still kept their monarch and formed a constitutional monarcy instead. Therefore, the English Civil War is never really seen as the Revolution it was. Moreover, there was fear of the anarchy that was happening in France, as the French Revolution entered the Reign of Terror Period.

Thus, while the Founding Fathers believed that direct democracy worked well in small populations, like the Greek city-states, they knew it would be impossible to have such an institution with such a massive population (at the time). The Founding generation hoped to establish a republic, but there were still plenty of concerns over how successful the new and radical government would be.

AnswerI have to disagree somewhat with the first reply to this answer. The reason there was no "direct democracy" espoused by the founders was largely because they believed pure democracy, i.e., the majority of people are always correct, to be contemptible.

Obviously, there are certain laws that should not be disregarded simply by the will of the people; else imagine what a large-spread but temporary panic could do to a democracy. The system of checks and balances instituted into our government was not put there merely because of a difficulty in speedy communication; it was put there to bound the will of the people.

In today's age of praise for "democracy," people often assume that things such as representation (as opposed to legislation through direct voting by the people, etc.) and checks & balances are out-dated relics. The founders knew that direct democracy would never work because human nature never changes, and people are often mislead, often misinformed, often selfish, and always imperfect.

Answerpledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "democracy." I invite you to join me in raising public awareness regarding that distinction.

The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.

The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. (see People's rights vs Citizens' rights)

In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.

SOME DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS

Government. ....the government is but an agency of the state, distinguished as it must be in accurate thought from its scheme and machinery of government. ....In a colloquial sense, the United States or its representatives, considered as the prosecutor in a criminal action; as in the phrase, "the government objects to the witness." [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 625]

Government; Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626]

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389.

Note: Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, can be found in any law library and most law offices.

COMMENTS

Notice that in a Democracy, the sovereignty is in the whole body of the free citizens. The sovereignty is not divided to smaller units such as individual citizens. To solve a problem, only the whole body politic is authorized to act. Also, being citizens, individuals have duties and obligations to the government. The government's only obligations to the citizens are those legislatively pre-defined for it by the whole body politic.

In a Republic, the sovereignty resides in the people themselves, whether one or many. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives as he chooses to solve a problem. Further, the people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government being hired by the people, is obliged to its owner, the people.

The people own the government agencies. The government agencies own the citizens. In the United States we have a three-tiered cast system consisting of people ---> government agencies ---> and citizens.

The people did "ordain and establish this Constitution," not for themselves, but "for the United States of America." In delegating powers to the government agencies the people gave up none of their own. (See Preamble of U.S. Constitution). This adoption of this concept is why the U.S. has been called the "Great Experiment in self government." The People govern themselves, while their agents (government agencies) perform tasks listed in the Preamble for the benefit of the People. The experiment is to answer the question, "Can self-governing people coexist and prevail over government agencies that have no authority over the People?"

The citizens of the United States are totally subject to the laws of the United States (See 14th Amendment of U.S. Constitution). NOTE: U.S. citizenship did not exist until July 28, 1868.

Actually, the United States is a mixture of the two systems of government (Republican under Common Law, and democratic under statutory law). The People enjoy their God-given natural rights in the Republic. In a democracy, the Citizens enjoy only government granted privileges (also known as civil rights).

There was a great political division between two major philosophers, Hobbes and Locke. Hobbes was on the side of government. He believed that sovereignty was vested in the state. Locke was on the side of the People. He believed that the fountain of sovereignty was the People of the state. Statists prefer Hobbes. Populists choose Locke. In California, the Government Code sides with Locke. Sections 11120 and 54950 both say, "The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them." The preambles of the U.S. and California Constitutions also affirm the choice of Locke by the People.

It is my hope that the U.S. will always remain a Republic, because I value individual freedom.

Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and ignorance cannot coexist.* Will you help to preserve minority rights by fulfilling the promise in the Pledge of Allegiance to support the Republic? Will you help by raising public awareness of the difference between the Republic and a democracy?

• "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization,

it expects what never was and never will be." Thomas Jefferson, 1816.

========================================================================

Just after the completion and signing of the Constitution, in reply to a woman's inquiry as to the type of government the Founders had created, Benjamin Franklin said, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the Constitution). A democracy is direct government ruled by the majority (mob rule). A Republic recognizes the inalienable rights of individuals while democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs (the public good).

Democracies always self-destruct when the non-productive majority realizes that it can vote itself handouts from the productive minority by electing the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury. To maintain their power, these candidates must adopt an ever-increasing tax and spend policy to satisfy the ever-increasing desires of the majority. As taxes increase, incentive to produce decreases, causing many of the once productive to drop out and join the non-productive. When there are no longer enough producers to fund the legitimate functions of government and the socialist programs, the democracy will collapse, always to be followed by a Dictatorship.

Even though nearly every politician, teacher, journalist and citizen believes that our Founders created a democracy, it is absolutely not true. The Founders knew full well the differences between a Republic and a Democracy and they repeatedly and emphatically said that they had founded a republic.

Article IV Section 4, of the Constitution "guarantees to every state in this union a Republican form of government".... Conversely, the word Democracy is not mentioned even once in the Constitution. Madison warned us of the dangers of democracies with these words,

"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths...",

"We may define a republic to be ... a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic." James Madison, Federalist No. 10, (1787)

"A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men." Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862)

Our military training manuals used to contain the correct definitions of Democracy and Republic. The following comes from Training Manual No. 2000-25 published by the War Department, November 30, 1928.

DEMOCRACY:

A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy. REPUBLIC:

Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress. Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world. (Angelo Cobrasci, Founder ~ Defenders of Freedom)

Answer 2

Realize that Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and other Founders were very well-read in political theory at the time. They saw democracy as a vast improvement over British Monarchy, but had reservations. They did not believe there should be divisive political parties, hypocritically. They did not believe every man was entitled to a vote. They wanted to to build a nation with authority in "...the Republic, for which it stands...", not mob rule. They tended to trust legislatures, which had worked so well in the American Colonies for over a hundred years, as being superior to pure democracy or a near dictatorship.

They chose a loose Legislature as the chosen form of government under the Articles of Confederation. With the Constitution, they chose a mix of Authoritarian, Oligarchical, and Republican forms of government in the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches, respectively. This design was to prevent a majority of political power. They DID NOT INCLUDE DEMOCRACY because they saw it led to a rule by the majority, among other problems:

The will of the majority will not represent itself well. In a democracy (not an elected republic) the majority will more than likely be effectively lied to, intimidated, abstain or defer to a will that is not theirs. If 1,000 people are free to democratically express their will with, say, small clay disks, then that is a vote. Take for example the vote of Spartans, in the first large democracy, deciding whether to dispatch gifts to Dalmatia. Most citizens are of the opinion "No, don't send anything" while a minority wish to "Send something." The implications and details involved in the decision are huge, but most Spartans would not even think of them. (Sparta was militaristic, isolationist, and rustic to a fault.) Just as one oligarchy or individual cannot know what is best, the majority of a large group cannot decide by vote what is best either. The prime example is criminal behavior. With so many laws most citizens agree to, there will always be a small minority who disagree strongly enough to act them out. The larger minorities may not break laws, but become disenfranchised to the point that they lose respect for other individuals in the democracy. This lack of respect can lead to everything from an angry letter, petitions, protest, or rarely in democracies -civil war. Majority rule makes the minority the ruled in a lawful society. So the will of the majority may or should not make laws too harsh. The will of the majority should not take away the minority's right to debate and vote. The will of the majority should not decide to details: if a gift were decided on it would require some citizens to remain quiet or else debate for hours over how something will be given. The majority should also not elect unrepresentative Representatives, in a real democracy. Here are two Youtubes on modern manipulation of the majority's will: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24vvozhcsJY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnYZVNVqBgU

Answer 3

The founders of the United States really didn't think that the "common" man could make such heavy decisions and it was better left to the people who knew what they were doing. In 1789 90% of the population was farmers and did have a limited education. Plus, many were limited English speaking. A good example of this is that in 1830 60% of New York City didn't speak English. George Washington felt that the only way for a democracy to work that the population needed to be educated, so he pushed for public education for all.

Answer 4

Direct Democracy -- that is, the people electing members of the federal government by popular vote -- was considered too radical and dangerous. They felt that representative democracy (where the people elected their local governments and sent qualified people to select national leaders) was safer and more reliable.