Should political decisions be made democratically?
349974
IN THE DAYS OF THE 18TH CENTURY, THIS COUNTRY WAS SO LARGE THAT A DIRECT DEMOCRACY WAS NOT A VERY GOOD OPTION.  SO THEY WENT WITH THE NEXT BEST THING.  BUT IN TODAYS TIMES, A DIRECT DEMOCRACY IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE WITH THE HIGH TECH COMMUNICATIONS WE HAVE TODAY.  THE CORRUPT SYSTEM WE HAVE TODAY IS PROOF THAT A REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY IS DOOMED TO FAIL.  A DIRECT DEMOCRACY WOULD BE FAR MORE HONEST.
196160
Yes, it is.  (It's also a republic, capitalist, etc.)  It's not a "direct" democracy in the sense of submitting everything to a direct vote of the people, but the people do have ultimate power.  As a practical matter, the people frequently don't exercise the power they have -- they often don't bother voting, or don't educate themselves on issues -- but the power is there if they choose.
664632
Letting politicians make military decisions.
818353
uh...democracy's side
666360
The United States is not a Democracy.  It is a Republic. A Democracy is generally thought of as being ruled by the people.  We elect representatives to "rule" for us. It would be too hard to run a country as a true Democracy.  All the people would have to vote on everything.  However, We do hold the democratic process, and the people, in high esteem and try to run the country by what most of the people want.
474390
A democracy is a form of government where decisions are made by the people.\n\nIn a "direct democracy" every citizen votes for every decision.  This includes who will occupy each office and each government job, and every law and rule, as well as enforcement of laws.\n\nIn a "republic," the citizens elect representatives to offices and the elected representatives make decisions on hiring employees and passing and enforcing laws.\n\nFor a country the size of the U.S., a direct democracy would be infeasible.  Both the Republican and Democratic parties favor a republican form of government.\n\nThe Republican Party generally sides with the interests of wealthy people.  Although they claim to favor conservative financial practices and smaller government, they do not follow those beliefs when in office.\n\nThe Democratic Party generally favors the interests of middle class and poor people.  They are more receptive to deficit spending and financial support of poor people.
790375
YES to all that.. But more important, Democrats in the majority in congress will stop a one party rule!.. And no party should have as much power to wage useless wars and policies for profit that this government has done over the last 6 years.. In a word, \nAccountability \nThis is what a democratic vote will do.
76788
The question is a bit ambiguous. Any democratic government has rules defined by It's Constitution. So it all depends on which federal government you are speaking of. The U.S Constitution for example calls for elections every two years. There isn't a prescribed method of not having an election, which would only be conceivable in a time of such great conflict/disaster that the president would be forced to suspend the entire constitution and declare martial law. This is virtually an impossibility, such events would be so terrific it probably destory the U.S, or any other government as we know it.
118524
In my personal opinon I feel that your question can be answered on your definition of democracy.  Many political philosophers from the past such as Hobbes, Locke, Mill, and Rousseau express societies responsibility differently.  \n\nOn one side you can define democracy as "the principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community (American Heritage Dictionary)."  If this is the case then who has the right to tell another person what they can and cannot do.  The individual must be respected and must have a freedom as described in J.S. Mill's works "Utilitarianism" and "On Liberty."  He believes that people should be granted the maximum amount of freedom in oder to be happy and that other people should not interfere.\n\nWih that another definition of democracy is when "the common people, considered as the primary source of political power (American Heritage Dictionary)." According to Hobbes, Rousseau, and even Locke people should have a freedom to do what they like but not at the cost of violating the laws of nature or at the possibility of being a danger to society. If society dictates that abortion is bad, well for the sake of maintaining a stable society people within that society should adhere to the laws passed by the majority.\n\nWell thats my two cents.....
673880
We should have as many parties as we want. It would mean that americans finally have a choice, and experience a real democracy. Right now, we have two side of the same coin.
858537
mm well if this is what you meen, democracy is when all of the citizens send in votes for who they want to be president, and to decide which person to vote for, all of the people that are wanting to be president ( I forgot what they are called during this time) have a campaign and tell what they will do as president, the person with the most votes (which had the best campaign) wins the election and becomes president
667938
Are you talking a system of government or which political party should be in power?  If the former, then it should return to the way it was when the government was founded - a republic.  If the latter, then I would say whatever direction an enlightened citizenry (unlike we are today) wants to take it.
506504
I think each country must fight it's own wars if it wants democracy.  If the people want it badly enough they'll do so, it's not up to others to step in and hand it to them or cram it down their throats.
479962
There is no problem with compulsory voting in a democracy. A democracy is not a state of unmitigated freedom. There have to be social rules and laws for any form of government. Without compulsory voting, you get the mess we have in the USA, where one party has deliberately set out to take power away permanently from the other party. Unfortunately for them, they chose a stooge for a leader and it's all about to fall apart.
185331
The problem with Democracy is that we have a country based on equality AND freedom.  Alexis DeToqueville wrote that it is impossible for us to be totally equal and totally free because the wills of men will always cross other's boundries.  If you are posing a question of whether or not it is more important to be "humane" than "democratic", then I believe that you might have something.  Ofcourse, democrats will undeniably stand up and say that democracy IS humane, but I guess that's all in the eye of the beholder.  Fascism shows itself on many different levels, from the workplace, to households, to governmental issues, but the one thing I can say about democracy is that it at least tries for a middleground on freedom and equality.  A goverment by the people, for the people, but it does seem that the people's voice is getting a bit weaker than it used to be.
719943
We are not a Democracy. We are a representative republic. It would lead to chaos if everything that was decided went up to vote. This way you vote the representative in and if the decisions are bad ones you vote them back out. The system has a lot of checks and balances so things that are controversial can't be done quickly.
816172
In the U.K. it should be a majority of all parties in both houses of parliament that should make the decision, and not just the government. The ordinary citizens do not always have all the required information due to secrecy laws.