Should states continue to allow ballot initiatives and other forms of direct democracy? why or why not?

Direct democracy, or the participation of the people in direct ways in the process of decision-making and law-making, is both a good thing and a bad thing. On the good side of it, it allows people to have a direct say, and become encouraged to participate in political and decision-making processes. It also allows them to become empowered, feel that their voices, and their votes, count, and that they are not dependent on the views of a person who was elected by them, but that does not necessarily see things like them.

But on the other hand, there are downsides. The most important would be that popular views are easily swayed, and people can make very bad mistakes during the process of lawmaking when they are properly pushed and convinced by others who are leaders. Thus, not always the voice of the people is what is best for a country. But when people have the absolute power, like in a direct democracy, then errors due to unnecessary pressure, or lack of knowledge and formation, can be fatal to a nations development.

I believe that states should allow forms of direct democracy, as it will help people feel more involved with their authorities and government, and give them a sense of empowerment that can be benefitial. However, these initiatives need to be within limits, and allowed on certain agendas, not all of them. Not always the idea of ruling "with the people" is the best standpoint. I would say a semi-direct democracy is the best way to go.

nasa 3

answer; researchers typically cannot control people's sexual behaviors as would be necessary in an experiment;