The framers of the United States Constitution consciously designed a republic, or indirect democracy; however, the practice of direct democracy and the discussions over its interests are as old as English settlements in America. Direct democracy was not what the lawmakers of the Constitution envisioned for the nation. They saw a danger in tyranny of the majority, for example, uneducated versus educated or rich versus poor. As a result, the framers of the Constitution advocated a representative democracy in the form of a constitutional republic over a direct democracy to protect the individual from the will of the majority. However, in the nineteenth century the Progressive movement in California gave the birth to direct democracy. The movement focused on good-government reforms, including the initiative, referendum, recall, and direct election of United States Senators. The goal of these reforms was to increase the responsiveness of state government to broad interests, not just large businesses. California has long been in the vanguard of direct democracy, having been one of the first states to adopt the tools of citizen-initiated legislation early in the twentieth century. Los Angeles in 1835, when it had a population of approximately 2,000 had a form of direct legislation. It was ruled in both Spanish and Mexican …show more content…
For instance, California’s Proposition 187, which sought to deny aid to illegal immigrants (although it passed, it was eventually ruled unconstitutional) and Proposition 209, which prohibited public universities from using race as a determining factor in admissions. Most of the criticism focuses only on specific initiative campaigns, which is why it can’t be valid for the entire initiative process. Observing that a few initiative campaigns are costly or that narrow interests rarely succeed doesn’t constitute actual reason to condemn the whole