The only branch of government that was directly elected from the beginning was the House of Representatives. The Electoral College was established for indirect election of the president (still in place today), and Senators were appointed by state legislatures. Back when the country was founded, hardly anyone voted. In the first few presidential elections, state legislatures directed their electoral college members. Not democratic by any means, but that system gave us Washigton, Jefferson, Adams and Madison, while our current system has given us Nixon, Bush and Obama. I don’t oppose universal suffrage, but it’s something to think about. It’s also worth noting that Alexander Hamilton favored a permanent president.

The Seventeenth Amendment was a step towards a more democratic system by having senators directly elected, and as a result, the states lost any representation they had at the federal level, and the senate is now just a glorified rubberstamp house. Few people would argue that the people’s interests are far better represented in the house.

Democracy has not been around long enough in a widespread fashion to know if Joe is right or not, but we have had it here for 233 years and we are still a democracy. And Roman Emperors had far more power over their subjects lives than the President has over mine. But that aside, Joe is right on with him comments about republics and the Constitution better protecting the rights of individuals.

Representative republican government isn’t perfect, but it is a better form of government. But even republics fail, and that is why we have a constitution. Most people erroneously believe that the Constitution is about what rules the people can live by, but really, it is a strict explanation of what the government can and cannot do. That is why the first amendment begins with “Congress shall make NO law…”. Meaning that the US Government cannot make laws against freedom of speech, religion, assembly, etc. even if it became popular to do so, which it has.

In terms of protecting the rights of the individuals, I think constitutional/parliamentary monarchy is a better form of government, but that’s another story.

http://www.showmedaily.org/2008/02/initiative-refe.html

In short, there’s no doubt that the initiative & referendum process has led to some terrible laws being passed, but those drawbacks are few and far between. Overall, I&R has cut taxes, slashed spending, passed term limits, and increased government transparency.

The drawbacks are especially slim when compared to the track record of legislators, who regularly pass laws that make the worst excesses of citizen initiatives seem like models of fiscal restraint.

So, ultimately, I see the initiative process as one more check on government power — which is, as you’ve pointed out, fully compatible with the structure of a representative republic. We might quibble about just how easy it should be to get something on a ballot, or what percentage of the vote any particular proposal should have to garner before passing, but direct democracy is an essential *component* of a functional republic.