Final answer:
Direct Democracy can be impractical for large populations and requires high voter engagement and information, leading to potential delays in decision-making. Indirect Democracy, while more efficient in governance, can suffer from political corruption and may not adequately represent minority interests.
Step-by-step explanation:
Negatives of both Direct Democracy and Indirect Democracy (also known as representative democracy) are evident in their implementation and the outcomes they produce. In Direct Democracy, the challenges include managing large populations where each citizen is expected to participate directly in decision-making. This can cause delays and require a greater commitment from voters to be informed on every issue. Ancient Athens is a historical example where Direct Democracy was practiced, but it proved to be cumbersome and unrealistic in larger groups. Indirect Democracy, on the other hand, allows citizens to elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf. However, this system can lead to political corruption and have representatives that are not fully in tune with the needs of their constituents. Additionally, the potential for neglecting minority voices is significant given that representatives may primarily act in the interest of the majority or their supporters.