Traditionally, two kinds of substantive democracy are recognized: 1-direct, 2-indirect.

1. In a direct democracy, make the laws directly and individually by casting a vote for a given law that becomes binding by the ratio of 50%+1 formula (50% of all votes cast, plus –at least--one single vote) that renders it a slim/simple majority. If the result is also binding, it also make it “the dictatorship of the majority”—meaning, the minority will have no recourse to redress. This is what national referendums (referenda)--meaning choosing one from many choices) and plebiscites (choosing one of the two choices given) are. But as of late, more and more communities, in the US and other places this method is becoming more and more common, thanks to the spread of electronic mass media which can quickly fill in the voters with information for and against an initiative/new rule/desired law. California was at the forefront of this, but have now is backtracking after having made one too many remarkably bad laws through this process of direct democracy.

2. In an indirect democracy, people elect the body of professionals to make the decision for them, either to make laws by themselves and in the name of the people who elected them, OR, they vote to elect yet another, even smaller body of more experienced individual to make the laws (or enforce or interpret them).

The proponents of indirect democracy state the lack of knowledge on the part of the common people/voter and their amateurism that renders them easy targets for special interests, political opportunists and crooks. Common people are by necessity politically illiterate and therefore extremely shortsighted as the consequence. Let us test this theory on you:

It is time to elect the world leader, and your vote counts. Here are the facts about the three leading candidates:

Candidate A: Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologists. He has had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.