We started by thinking about what indirect democracy actually means.
The dictionary definition states that:
Indirect democracy, or representative democracy, is when citizens elect representatives to make laws for them. This is what most modern countries have today.
We then looked at some of the advantages of this system.
1. It is a very efficient form of government when it is operating correctly. It is designed to have people working together co-operatively so that no group ever gains too much power.
2. People still get to have their say via a vote, so their opinions are not completely ignored.
3. Every district is properly represented by a local MP, so decisions can be made in line with the needs of different types of people.
4. It simplifies the decision making process and means that people don’t have to vote on every little thing.
We also looked at the disadvantages, as we thought it was important to have a balanced view of the way this system works.
1. There has to be a great deal of trust- people need to believe that their representative in parliament are going to make the right decisions for them.
2. It requires excellent communication since representatives are scattered all over the country.
3. It discourages participation. People might think that they don’t need to vote, since there is still someone representing them who can make a decision.
Finally, we thought about whether this system is a fair way of making decisions or not, and we came to the following conclusions.
We think that indirect democracy is unfair because only the MP of your area (which is the person that is in charge of your area) really has an affect on what is going to happen and the MP can think something is better for it's area with all of the citizens of the area thinking that the other option/options are better for them therefore indirect democracy is unfair. The MP could choose anything that could benefit them rather than thinking about the community they represent- it must be difficult to trust that they will make the right decisions.
However we can also say that direct democracy is unfair because if there is a democracy with two options to vote for and one of the options gets a total of 51% of votes for it and the second option with a total of 49% and loses by 1% then it is also unfair that all of the people's votes which were for the second option did not count at all.
For example, when people voted for Brexit and the scores were revealed in 2016, the people in the United Kingdom who voted to leave the European Union only won the debate by 2% which means that they had a total of 52% and the people who wanted to stay in the European Union had a total of 48% so the people who wanted to leave only had an advantage of 2% and they still won which is also unfair for the 48% who were out voted by 2%.
I think that indirect democracy is very comparable to a dice game where you try to get a six but you don't control it and you are at the mercy of a single dice which in real life is the MP of your area and when you hope to get six in real life you hope for your MP pick the option that you think is good. In conclusion, I think that indirect democracy is unfair since you do not have enough of an affect on what the decision of the democracy will be and only your MP has an affect on what will happen.