Two different variants of democracy. Direct democracy, representative democracy. Both have inherit advantages and disadvantages. So, what's your point?
I suppose my point is the co-opting of the word "Democracy" by certain groups, to present a different idea of government than those they govern live under.
Which leads to the general population not understanding:
-Why there is an electoral college instead of a direct vote for the president.
-Why there are two divisions of the legislative branch, the House which is proportionally represented, and the Senate which originally was appointed by the State-Legislatures.
Companies like Facebook are pushing for more direct voting. Which should give you pause as the tyranny of the Majority is a very real thing, if you don't believe so look at California which voted down gay marriage despite being a liberal bastion. The average voter is not informed enough to vote on specific legislation, and find themselves easily manipulated by the mass media.
Removing another safeguard to prevent the tyranny of the Majority is never a good idea.
PS There is good reason when searching through the Constitution you will not see the Country defined as a Democracy, or even the word democracy used. Rather it is explicit in the fact that we live in a Republic
>The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
Also, explain Napoleon who was Monarch over the Republic of France
Yes, our constitution guarantees that each state will be a republic, not a monarchy.
> Also, explain Napoleon who was Monarch over the Republic of France
The French state while Napoleon was emperor is known as the "First French Empire", which replaced the "First French Republic". Eventually, after both the Empire and the Old Regime were re-abolished in 1848, the resulting non-monarchical state was called the "Second French Republic". So your example actually supports my point.
There's no such thing as a "direct democracy and representative democracy". There's democracy and there's republicanism.
Democracy is the people electing on the issues. It wasn't conceived with universal vote in mind, in fact, it was very elitist in nature.
Republicanism is the people electing representatives to weigh the pros and cons of each choice for them. In practice it is much closer to our current system, its flaws included.
