Editing Direct democracy (section)

==Examples==
{{Further|Referendums by country}}

===Early Athens===
{{Main|Athenian democracy}}
Athenian democracy developed in the [[Ancient Greece|Greek]] [[city-state]] of [[Classical Athens|Athens]], comprising the city of Athens and the surrounding territory of [[Attica]], around 600 BC. Athens was one of the [[History of democracy#Athens|first known democracies]]. Other Greek cities set up democracies, and even though most followed an Athenian model, none were as powerful, stable, or well-documented as that of Athens. In the direct democracy of Athens, the citizens did not nominate representatives to vote on legislation and executive bills on their behalf (as in the United States) but instead voted as individuals. The [[public opinion]] of voters was influenced by the [[political satire]] of the [[Ancient Greek comedy|comic poets]] in the [[Ancient Greek theatre|theatres]].<ref>Henderson, J. (1996) ''Comic Hero versus Political Elite'' pp. 307–19 in {{Cite book|editor=Sommerstein, A.H. |editor2=S. Halliwell |editor3=J. Henderson |editor4=B. Zimmerman |title=Tragedy, Comedy and the Polis |year=1993 |publisher=Levante Editori |location=Bari}}</ref>

[[Solon]] (594 BC), [[Cleisthenes]] (508–507 BCE), and [[Ephialtes]] (462 BC) all contributed to the development of Athenian democracy. Historians differ on which of them was responsible for which institution, and which of them most represented a truly democratic movement. It is most usual to date Athenian democracy from Cleisthenes since Solon's constitution fell and was replaced by the tyranny of [[Peisistratos|Peisistratus]], whereas Ephialtes revised Cleisthenes' constitution relatively peacefully.
[[Hipparchus (son of Pisistratus)|Hipparchus]], the brother of the tyrant [[Hippias (son of Pisistratus)|Hippias]], was killed by [[Harmodius and Aristogeiton]], who were subsequently honored by the Athenians for their alleged restoration of Athenian freedom.

The greatest and longest-lasting democratic leader was [[Pericles]]; after his death, Athenian democracy was twice briefly interrupted by an oligarchic revolution towards the end of the [[Peloponnesian War]]. It was modified somewhat after it was restored under [[Eucleides]]; the most detailed accounts are of this 4th-century modification rather than of the Periclean system. It was suppressed by the [[Macedonia (ancient kingdom)|Macedonians]] in 322 BC. The Athenian institutions were later revived, but the extent to which they were a real democracy is debatable.<ref>{{Harvnb|Elster|1998|pp=1–3}}</ref>

Sociologist [[Max Weber]] believed that every [[mass democracy]] went in a [[Caesarism|Caesarist]] direction. Professor of law Gerhard Casper writes, "Weber employed the term to stress, [[inter alia]], the [[Plebeian Council|plebiscitary]] character of elections, disdain for parliament, the non-toleration of autonomous powers within the government and a failure to attract or suffer independent political minds."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://law.stanford.edu/publications/caesarism-in-democratic-politics-reflections-on-max-weber/ |title=Caesarism in Democratic Politics: Reflections on Max Weber}}</ref>

===Liechtenstein===
Direct democracy is considered to be an engrained element of [[Politics of Liechtenstein|Liechtensteiner politics]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/lgt-private-banking-asia-pacific/2022/06/01/the-princely-house-of-liechtenstein-900-years-of-history/|title=The Princely House Of Liechtenstein: 900 Years Of History}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/liechtensteins-referendum-on-covid-19-measures-fails/|title=Liechtenstein's referendum on COVID-19 measures fails}}</ref>

If called for by at least 1,000 citizens, a referendum on any law can be initiated. Referendums can suspend [[Parliament of Liechtenstein|parliament]] or change the [[Constitution of Liechtenstein|constitution]], but at least 1,500 citizens must vote affirmative, so referendums to suspend parliament or change the constitution fail if they have low turnout even if the required percentage of total voters is met.

===Switzerland===
[[File: Swiss voting material.jpg|thumb|In [[Voting in Switzerland|Switzerland]], with no need to register, every citizen receives the [[ballot papers]] and information brochure for each vote and election and can return it by post. Switzerland has various directly democratic instruments; votes are organized about four times a year. Here, the papers received by every citizen of [[Bern#Politics|Berne]] in November 2008 about five national, two cantonal, four municipal referendums, and two elections (government and parliament of the City of Berne) of 23 competing parties to take care of at the same time.]]
{{Main|Politics of Switzerland|Voting in Switzerland}}
{{Further|Landsgemeinde|Federal popular initiative}}

The pure form of direct democracy exists only in the [[Switzerland|Swiss]] [[Cantons of Switzerland|cantons]] of [[Appenzell Innerrhoden]] and [[Canton of Glarus|Glarus]].<ref name=Golay/> The [[Swiss Confederation]] is a semi-direct democracy (representative democracy with strong instruments of direct democracy).<ref name=Golay/> The nature of direct democracy in Switzerland is fundamentally complemented by its federal governmental structures (in [[German language|German]] also called the [[:de:Subsidiaritätsprinzip<!-- please note that the English WP article about Subsidiarity does not (yet) reflect/discuss the political/governmental nature in a satisfiying quality, therefore referring to the German Article here -->|Subsidiaritätsprinzip]]).{{sfnp|Hirschbühl|2011a}}{{sfnp|Hirschbühl|2011b}}{{sfnp|Hirschbühl|2011c}}{{sfnp|Hirschbühl|2011d}}

Most western countries have representative systems.<ref name=Golay>Vincent Golay and Mix et Remix, ''Swiss political institutions'', Éditions loisirs et pédagogie, 2008. {{ISBN|978-2-606-01295-3}}.</ref> [[Switzerland]] is a rare example of a country with instruments of direct democracy (at the levels of the municipalities, [[Cantons of Switzerland|cantons]], and [[Politics of Switzerland|federal state]]). Citizens have more power than in a representative democracy. On any political level citizens can propose changes to the constitution ([[Popular initiative (Switzerland)|popular initiative]]) or ask for an [[optional referendum]] to be held on any law voted by the [[Federal Assembly (Switzerland)|federal]], [[cantonal]] parliament and/or [[Municipalities of Switzerland|municipal]] legislative body.<ref name=refdum>{{cite web |url=https://www.ch.ch/en/political-system/political-rights/referendums/mandatory-and-optional-referendums/ |title=Referendums |publisher=Swiss Confederation |website=ch.ch – A service of the Confederation, cantons and communes |location=Berne, Switzerland |access-date=2017-01-09 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170110092314/https://www.ch.ch/en/political-system/political-rights/referendums/mandatory-and-optional-referendums/ |archive-date=2017-01-10 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

The list for [[mandatory referendum|mandatory]] or optional referendums on each political level are generally much longer in Switzerland than in any other country; for example, any amendment to the constitution must automatically be voted on by the Swiss electorate and cantons, on cantonal/communal levels often any financial decision of a certain substantial amount decreed by legislative and/or executive bodies as well.<ref name=refdum/>

Swiss citizens vote regularly on any kind of issue on every political level—such as financial approvals of a schoolhouse or the building of a new street, or the change of the policy regarding sexual work, or on constitutional changes, or on the foreign policy of Switzerland—four times a year.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.swissinfo.ch/directdemocracy/checks-and-balances_the-swiss-vote-more-than-any-other-country/36286970 |title=The Swiss vote more than any other country |author=Julia Slater |publisher=swissinfo.ch – the international service of the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation |date=28 June 2013 |location=Berne, Switzerland |access-date=2015-07-27 |archive-date=2017-07-13 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170713231924/http://www.swissinfo.ch/directdemocracy/checks-and-balances_the-swiss-vote-more-than-any-other-country/36286970 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Between January 1995 and June 2005, Swiss citizens voted 31 times, on 103 federal questions besides many more cantonal and municipal questions.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.swissinfo.ch/directdemocracy/explore-600-national-votes_how-direct-democracy-has-grown-over-the-decades/41481992 |title=How direct democracy has grown over the decades |author=Duc-Quang Nguyen |publisher=swissinfo.ch – the international service of the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation |date=17 June 2015 |location=Berne, Switzerland |access-date=2015-07-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150921071817/http://www.swissinfo.ch/directdemocracy/explore-600-national-votes_how-direct-democracy-has-grown-over-the-decades/41481992 |archive-date=21 September 2015 |url-status=dead }}</ref> During the same period, French citizens participated in only two referendums.<ref name=Golay/>

In [[Switzerland]], simple majorities are sufficient at the municipal and [[cantons of Switzerland|cantonal]] level, at the federal level [[Double majority|double majorities]] are required on constitutional issues.<ref name="Kobach1993" />

A double majority requires approval by a majority of individuals voting, and also by a majority of cantons. Thus, in Switzerland, a citizen-proposed amendment to the federal constitution (i.e. [[Popular initiative (Switzerland)|popular initiative]]) cannot be passed at the federal level if a majority of the people approve but a majority of the cantons disapprove.<ref name="Kobach1993" /> For referendums or propositions in general terms (like the principle of a general revision of the Constitution), a majority of those voting is sufficient (Swiss Constitution, 2005).

In 1890, when the provisions for Swiss national citizen lawmaking were being debated by civil society and government, the Swiss adopted the idea of double majorities from the [[United States Congress]], in which House votes were to represent the people and Senate votes were to represent the [[U.S. state|states]].<ref name="Kobach1993" /> According to its supporters, this "legitimacy-rich" approach to national citizen lawmaking has been very successful. [[Kris Kobach]], former Kansas elected official, claims that Switzerland has had tandem successes both socially and economically which are matched by only a few other nations. Kobach states at the end of his book, "Too often, observers deem Switzerland an oddity among political systems. It is more appropriate to regard it as a pioneer." Finally, the Swiss political system, including its direct democratic devices in a [[multi-level governance]] context, becomes increasingly interesting for scholars of [[European Union]] integration.<ref>Trechsel (2005)</ref>

===United States===
{{Main|History of direct democracy in the United States|Initiatives and referendums in the United States}}

In the [[New England]] region of the United States, [[New England town|towns]] in states such as [[Vermont]] decide local affairs through the direct democratic process of the [[town meeting]].<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=2A35hJAR7u0C&pg=PR7|title=Real Democracy: The New England Town Meeting and How It Works|first=Frank M.|last=Bryan|date=15 March 2010|publisher=University of Chicago Press|access-date=27 April 2017|via=Google Books|isbn=9780226077987}}</ref> This is the oldest form of direct democracy in the United States and predates the founding of the country by at least a century.

Direct democracy was not what the framers of the [[United States Constitution]] envisioned for the nation. They saw a danger in [[tyranny of the majority]]. As a result, they advocated a [[representative democracy]] in the form of a constitutional republic over a direct democracy. For example, [[James Madison]], in [[Federalist No. 10]], advocates a constitutional republic over direct democracy precisely to protect the individual from the will of the majority. He says,

{{blockquote|Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

[...]

[A] pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies 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.<ref>[http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm The Federalist No. 10&nbsp;– The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection (continued)&nbsp;– Daily Advertiser&nbsp;– November 22, 1787&nbsp;– James Madison]. Retrieved 2007-09-07.</ref>}}

Other framers spoke against pure democracy. [[John Witherspoon]], one of the signers of the [[United States Declaration of Independence|Declaration of Independence]], said: "Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state&nbsp;– it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage." At the New York Ratifying Convention, [[Alexander Hamilton]] was quoted saying "that a pure democracy, if it were practicable, would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is falser than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure, deformity."<ref>{{Harvnb|Zagarri|2010|p=97}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Hamilton |first1=Alexander |last2=Childs |first2=Francis |title=New York Ratifying Convention, First Speech of June 21 |url=https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-05-02-0012-0011 |website=National Archives |access-date=30 April 2024 |date=21 June 1788}}</ref>

Despite the framers' intentions at the beginning of the republic, ballot measures and their corresponding referendums have been widely used at the state and sub-state level. There is much state and federal [[case law]], from the early 1900s to the 1990s, that protects the people's right to each of these direct democracy governance components (Magleby, 1984, and Zimmerman, 1999). The first [[United States Supreme Court]] ruling in favor of the citizen lawmaking was in ''[[Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Oregon]]'', 223 U.S. 118 in 1912 (Zimmerman, December 1999). [[President of the United States|President]] [[Theodore Roosevelt]], in his "Charter of Democracy" speech to the [[Ohio Constitutional Convention (1912)]], stated: "I believe in the Initiative and Referendum, which should be used not to destroy representative government, but to correct it whenever it becomes misrepresentative."<ref>{{Harvnb|Watts|2010|p=75}}</ref>

In various states, referendums through which the people rule include:
* ''Referrals'' by the legislature to the people of "proposed constitutional amendments" (constitutionally used in 49 states, excepting only [[Delaware]]&nbsp;– Initiative & Referendum Institute, 2004).
* ''Referrals'' by the legislature to the people of "proposed statute laws" (constitutionally used in all 50 states&nbsp;– Initiative & Referendum Institute, 2004).
* ''Constitutional amendment initiative'' is a constitutionally defined petition process of "proposed constitutional law", which, if successful, results in its provisions being written directly into the state's constitution. Since constitutional law cannot be altered by state legislatures, this direct democracy component gives the people an automatic superiority and sovereignty, over representative government (Magelby, 1984). It is utilized at the state level in nineteen states: [[Arizona]], [[Arkansas]], [[California]], [[Colorado]], [[Florida]], [[Illinois]], [[Louisiana]], [[Massachusetts]], [[Michigan]], [[Mississippi]], [[Missouri]], [[Montana]], [[Nebraska]], [[Nevada]], [[North Dakota]], [[Ohio]], [[Oklahoma]], [[Oregon]] and [[South Dakota]] (Cronin, 1989). Among these states, there are three main types of the constitutional amendment initiative, with different degrees of involvement of the state legislature distinguishing between the types (Zimmerman, December 1999).
* ''Statute law initiative'' is a constitutionally defined, citizen-initiated petition process of "proposed statute law", which, if successful, results in law being written directly into the state's statutes. The statute initiative is used at the state level in twenty-one states: [[Alaska]], Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, [[Idaho]], [[Maine]], Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, [[Utah]], [[Washington (state)|Washington]] and [[Wyoming]] (Cronin, 1989). In Utah, there is no constitutional provision for citizen lawmaking. All of Utah's I&R law is in the state statutes (Zimmerman, December 1999). In most states, there is no special protection for citizen-made statutes; the legislature can begin to amend them immediately.
* ''Statute law referendum'' is a constitutionally defined, citizen-initiated petition process of the "proposed veto of all or part of a legislature-made law", which, if successful, repeals the standing law. It is used at the state level in twenty-four states: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, [[Kentucky]], Maine, [[Maryland]], Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, [[New Mexico]], North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming (Cronin, 1989).
* The ''[[recall election]]'' is a citizen-initiated process which, if successful, removes an elected official from office and replaces him or her. The first recall device in the United States was adopted in [[Los Angeles]] in 1903. Typically, the process involves the collection of citizen petitions for the recall of an elected official; if a sufficient number of valid signatures are collected and verified, a recall election is triggered. There have been four gubernatorial recall elections in U.S. history (two of which resulted in the recall of the governor) and 38 recall elections for state legislators (55% of which succeeded). Nineteen states and the [[District of Columbia]] have a recall function for state officials. Additional states have recall functions for local jurisdictions. Some states require specific grounds for a recall petition campaign.<ref>[http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/recall-of-state-officials.aspx Recall of State Officials], National Conference of State Legislatures (March 8, 2016).</ref>
* ''Statute law affirmation'' is available in Nevada. It allows the voters to collect signatures to place on the ballot a question asking the state citizens to affirm a standing state law. Should the law get affirmed by a majority of state citizens, the state legislature will be barred from ever amending the law, and it can be amended or repealed only if approved by a majority of state citizens in a direct vote.<ref>[https://ballotpedia.org/Statute_affirmation Statute affirmation], Ballotpedia</ref>

=== Direct democracy by country ===
{{Main|Referendums by country}}
The strength of direct democracy in individual countries can be quantitatively compared by the Citizen-initiated component of direct popular vote index in [[V-Dem Democracy indices]].<ref name="v-dem">[http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3066654 Sigman, Rachel, and Staffan I. Lindberg. "Neopatrimonialism and democracy: An empirical investigation of Africa's political regimes." V-Dem Working Paper 56 (2017).]</ref> A higher index indicates more direct democracy popular initiatives and referendums, shown below for individual countries. Only countries with index above 0 are shown.
{| class="wikitable sortable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"
! Country !! Citizen-initiated component of direct popular vote index for 2021<ref name="v-dem"/>
|-
| {{flaglist| Albania }}  || 0.077
|-
| {{flaglist| Bolivia }}  || 0.078
|-
| {{flaglist| Bulgaria }}  || 0.292
|-
| {{flaglist| Cape Verde }}  || 0.072
|-
| {{flaglist| Colombia }}  || 0.041
|-
| {{flaglist| Costa Rica }}  || 0.087
|-
| {{flaglist| Croatia }}  || 0.262
|-
| {{flaglist| Ecuador }}  || 0.073
|-
| {{flaglist| Georgia }}  || 0.054
|-
| {{flaglist| Hungary }}  || 0.242
|-
| {{flaglist| Italy }}  || 0.409
|-
| {{flaglist| Kazakhstan }}  || 0.032
|-
| {{flaglist| Kenya }}  || 0.042
|-
| {{flaglist| Kyrgyzstan }}  || 0.033
|-
| {{flaglist| Latvia }}  || 0.155
|-
| {{flaglist| Lithuania }}  || 0.191
|-
| {{flaglist| Luxembourg }}  || 0.038
|-
| {{flaglist| Malta }}  || 0.374
|-
| {{flaglist| Mexico }}  || 0.091
|-
| {{flaglist| Moldova }}  || 0.033
|-
| {{flaglist| Montenegro }}  || 0.048
|-
| {{flaglist| New Zealand }}  || 0.178
|-
| {{flaglist| North Macedonia }}  || 0.133
|-
| {{flaglist| Peru }}  || 0.249
|-
| {{flaglist| Philippines }}  || 0.094
|-
| {{flaglist| Romania }}  || 0.416
|-
| {{flaglist| Serbia }}  || 0.099
|-
| {{flaglist| Slovakia }}  || 0.334
|-
| {{flaglist| Slovenia }}  || 0.444
|-
| {{flaglist| Switzerland }}  || 0.841
|-
| {{flaglist| Taiwan }}  || 0.445
|-
| {{flaglist| Togo }}  || 0.037
|-
| {{flaglist| Uganda }}  || 0.048
|-
| {{flaglist| Ukraine }}  || 0.048
|-
| {{flaglist| Uruguay }}  || 0.766
|}