Democracy...
 

How would you define democracy in one sentence?

The ability of the people to choose how they are governed, and to abide by the decisions of the governing body where majority rules.

Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

it needs to be more direct these days, why cant we have more participation? i think peope in general feel they are sometimes being misrepresented.

Non-existent.

by the people for the people, something else

lincoln said this

I just had to put these. I love them:

A government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from this earth. He said nothing about a democracy - we do not have a democacy - no where on earth actually has a democracy and probably hasn't had since ancient Greece. Dude - we have a republican form of government - the constitution guarantees a republican form of government. Democracy and Communism are much alike in many respects - on paper they are both perfect forms of government. In reality neither works.

It is a form of government that is best developed by the people to be governed, not imposed by force. Democracy only works when it is passionately advocated by the majority.

Long live the US

Dude, at least edit your posts for some semblance of literacy.
But you're right. This is a republic, not a democracy. Unrelated, but amusing...
"Your guilty conscience may force you to vote Democratic, but deep down inside you secretly long for a cold-hearted Republican to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king." -- Sideshow Bob

Are you talking about the Dude? or are you referring to my post?

Churchill was pretty damn sharp, wasn't he?

good answer

Amen. I would define democracy as "Run by the people, for the people." This sounds a lot like the US (et al) with one important distinction: we elect people to run things for us. A true democracy has everyone's opinion registered on everything all the time. It's simply not possible to do. :)

Majority rule.

Well, yours was the one with three mistakes in one sentence. Normally I try to quell my tendency toward grammar nazism, but there's only so much I can brook before it starts to be distracting. And since I can't get a real response out of you on any important topic, I guess I had to stoop to this childish behavior.

So that cuts out the USA... ;)


As for Greece, it wasn't a true democracy either. Not everyone had the vote...


Democracy can't really be summed up in one sentance. That is kind of the point. Democracy is a very long winded, messy sysytem of governance. However, it is one of the more equitable systems going.

I'm not sure what a "pure" democracy would look like... if it is what "direct democracy" types are suggesting where we have plebicite on every issue, forget it.

Guess you can just do whatever you're comfortable with. As far as response - the fact you aren't getting the exact response you want is far from getting no response at all. And pardom my lack of grammatical skills - I stand totally chastised - Your Holiness. I'll do my best to see that it never ever happens again until next time. Sometimes I simply cannot help myself. And as the song says - I ain't wrong - I ain't sorry - and it's probably gonna' happen again. Your childish behavior is your problem.

I was referring specifically to this thread where you failed to address the fact that your article was a detriment to your cause rather than an aid. However, that is not related to this, and I am perfectly content to let the matter drop, especially the bit about the grammar nazism. I was, unfortunately, slightly drunk at the time of the original post, but that does not excuse it, nor does it excuse my defending it later. So my apologies for that.

KillerYoda:"Majority Rule"
Charlatan:"So that cuts out the USA... ;)"


How the hell are we supposed to know what the majority is if 49% of the country won't get off their asses and vote?

My friend has never voted in the 6 years he's been entitled to do so. He feels he can't make a change with his vote, because things never get better at the root, no matter who's in charge. The special interest groups still have too much power, there's too much corruption, etc.
2004 presidential election will be his first outing, he has decided. He is so against Bush that he is getting off his ass and voting.
So the point is that many people are apathetic about voting because no leader has inspired them to choose one way or the other. I'm not defending this; I vote and try to think it makes a difference. But we need a leader who inspires actual feeling in the public, no matter whether that feeling is loathing or admiration. Someone other than the cookie cutter clones who clog the ballot every time, all slightly different version numbers of the same software.

Democracy does not work thanks to the same traits of humans that will not allow true Communism to work.

The freedom of choice.

majority rule minority voice with the consent of the governed.


Yes, its true the US is not a direct democracy, technically it is a type of representative republic. Despite this people are more apt to flourish as human beings under our current system no matter how you 'define' it. Communism as a theory. This is important to distinguish because Communism has never been implimented as it was theorizied (sp?). We have had Stalinism, lenninism and what not but not communism. Now Communism as said theory has its ups (everyone was taken care of and everyone was equal, in theory), but people suffer incredibly because they have no personal choice. They are given jobs, housing, and a life more or less. We, the United States, as a country offer the most advantages for personal growth, human development, and general welfare, out of all of the current governments. Call us a welfare state, a non democracy, a representative republic, or even a hypocracy, but don't ever tell me that this isn't a great country.

That may be a little off topic but I was in a groove so I went with it. Agree or not that is my opinion. :D

Absolutely the best starting statement in a retort, ever.

.. and then ..

Huh?

He's "so against" Bush, even though Bush is a slightly different version of every other candidate? That makes sense.

I agree that the Republicrats and Demublicans are so close in policy and character that they had might as well just merge into one party with some slightly different policy stances. They are both comfortable with the system as is, which is why if a Libertarian candidate ever has a chance in hell, I will be voting for him/her. Until then, I don't feel that it is worthwhile.

Bush has proven, by word and deed, that he is not an acceptable president, in my friend's mind. When Bush and Gore came around in 2000, it seems abundantly clear there was no significant difference between them; thus the nearly 50-50 split in popular vote. They were the clones, because an unproven presidential candidate rarely says anything to distinguish himself. An incumbent president is a different matter. Clear?

So you don't vote, unless you think your candidate has a chance. Let's pretend the 50% of the nation who doesn't vote thinks that way. Imagine if they didn't, if everyone actually voted and voted for the person they wanted. You think the minor party candidates would start to look viable then? You bet your ass. You are doing yourself a disservice by waiting. Vote. Not just for president, but in local and state elections too. Until then, don't complain about voting being worthwhile.

FOSDICK, Harry Emerson (1878-1969)

"Democracy is often based upon the conviction that there are extraordinary possibilities in ordinary people."