what are the advantages and the disadvantages of american democratic system?
396719
You say American democratic, but the US system is not a democracy, but a representative republic.\n\nThe disadvantage of a democracy is that a marginal majority, through its vote can control everything in the country, and that the system is itself clumsy in that all the eligible people will vote on every issue, which is time consuming and open to great corruption.\n\nThe advantage of the representative republic is that representation can, and has, been established so that the minorities of the public and of the states are not disenfranchised, not removed from participation in the decision making processes. The smaller states (in population) have a say in government and laws through principally the US Senate, where every state gets 2 votes regardless of its population. That prevents the 10 most populous states of California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, New Jersey, and Georgia, which are decidedly more eastern (2 exceptions) from deciding all of the laws for all the 50 states. Those 10 states, with 1/2 the population would be able to by voting together over ride the vote of the other 40 states if we had a democracy and not a republic. So unless you want the complete control of this country to fall into the hands of a few states, you had better not vote for equal counting in presidential elections, nor in congressional representation.\n\nThere is actually less corruption in representative government than in totalitarian government, because there are more people that a corrupter must pay-off in a representative. If you don't understand or believe that, witness the state of things in the former Soviet Union where the government was "representative" in name only, with all candidates selected by the Communist Party, a group of fat cats who acted together as a governing unit.
975018
Well your advantages are (none)!!!\nYour disadvantages are: If you had a good president (Clinton) he could only have 6 years to fix the budget that the right wingers left for us. If you had a bad president (Bush #1 and Bush #2) they would  be around for 2 extra years. I know Bush #2 got reelected, but that was solely on scare tactics. To be honest he cheated his way in the first time with the whole recount in Florida.  Where his brother is governor.
167940
Democracy isn't an ideal system.  There are numerous flaws.  However it is the best form of government on the planet.  With a democratic society you aren't dragged out of your bed and taken off to some field and shot because you made a derogatory comment about your country's leader (Oh yes this does happen in other parts of the world.)  You say that freeing people from this type of persecution is unethical?!?  And these small groups that you are referring to are the ones dragging people out of their beds.\n\nOur founding fathers were living under an oppressive form of government.  If you read the deceleration of independence and even the preamble to the constitution you'll see what they were shooting for,  a form of government by the people and for the people.  Remember we are one of the newest country’s in the world but we also have the oldest constitution still in use today.\n\n\nWe the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America\n\nI truly wish you get the opportunity to travel outside the US.  So you can realize just how good you have it here. I don't know what college you are going to my dear but frankly you should ask for a refund.\n\nAnd remember the Freedom you are now enjoying to complain was paid for with the blood of this country's solders, IE that's why we aren't speaking German, Japanese or Russian.
107398
This is because there is no system that can ideally order society. Traditionally the purpose of democracy is to prevent tyranny (the accumulation of too much authority in the hands of one or a few). That is, democracy is not intended to give us "good" government, but to put some limits to the abuse of power.\n\nIt is important to recognize that democracy is not morally ideal. At the heart of democracy is the belief that if a majority is in agreement, it is legitimate to harm the minority. While a clear improvement over tyranny (in which the decision of a minority of 1 person makes it legitimate to harm the majority of all others), this coercive power is still cause for concern. For this reason, some countries (such as the USA) have created constitutions that set protect particular issues from majoritarian decision-making. Generally, changes in these constitutions require the agreement of a super-majority. This means a majority can still legitimately coerce a minority (which is still ethically questionable), but as a practical matter it is harder to get a larger proportion of the people to agree to such actions.
1090209
They are not necessary. They are an instrument that allows the people to pick a representative. Without them, it is hard to see how one could have a democracy. However, elections alone are not suffient to have a democracy.
964438
This supposedly free system of elections boils down to two candidates and parties, so why bother if you don't want either candidate, choose the lesser evil and it's your time and gas.\nI would think this has much to do with it as well the registration of voters is outdated as Americans move so often. Change the system and reform. Regardless which candidate you elect or re elect it comes down to what their party wants and the money that supports them.
182015
No.  The idea of a representative democracy like the United States is that we elect leaders to make these decisions for us.  While direct democracy (what you described) is great in theory, in practice politics is a full time job.  If people are going to vote on every issue they also have to discuss and debate every issue in order to make an informed decision.  If all citizens were expected to serve essentailly as members of congress (this is effectively what you are asking), society would cease to function.  Factories, resturantes, schools, and stores would have to close every time there was a political issue to be decided.\n\nHolding a general election is also extremely expensive and time-consuming.  You need people to supply the ballots, run the polls, and count the votes.  Special intrest groups spend huge sums on advertising for a bill they support or oppose.  Holding general elections more frequently is not economically practical.\n\nYou might say that direct democracy worked in ancient Athens.  However, direct democracy worked in Athens because slaves, women, and children kept things running while the male citizens were busy with politics.\n\nFurthermore, most issues decided by congress are far to complex for the general public.  You may want your say in abortion rights or gay marriage, or a politically charged war like the one in Iraq, but if you trust the general public to review budget proposals or redistricting measures you're insane.  Even matters like the Patriot Act are beyond the comprehension of the average American.  Try actually reading the thing - you'll see what I mean.  There are times when it is critical to raise taxes (like in the case of [legitimate] war) but asking the public to vote for it is essentially asking people to voluntarily hand over a larger portion of their income to the government.\n\nThe solution is not to switch to direct democracy but to vote for representatives who will make good decisions.
114420
If it aint broke don't fix it. There are virtues in a parliamentary democracy but the negative side is that parties become too strong. \nThe US system which limits presedential terms works just fine with a semblance of power between Congress, the Executive and the Judiciary.
94471
I do not agree with the last answer before mine. The United Sates of America does not have a Democracy. We have a Repubic, where we elect people to represent us. In a true Democracy, all citizens vote on every issue. It is as simple as that. The people truly have power, and do make the decisions. However, because of the population of the world now, getting every citizen in a country to vote on every issue would be a chaotic mess. Also, this would it much easier for people to change ballots (something Jeb Bush obviously did to get his brother George elected for President in 2000).
787404
democratic government has to have checks and balances, every other country wants a reproduction of american democracy system but their system will not necessarily reflect the values and principles - for instance american government was instituted by the people for the people, british government was instituted for the land owning gentry and does not afford as much power to the common man. an elected second assembly (or houses of parliament) would not have the same effect in our country as it does in america, you would have to appoint people from the streets possible randomly in some cases to have the same effect in britain as in america\n\nthe amendments to the american constitution since the 1970s have eroded the power of the people slightly, there needs to be a lot of work done to redress the balance - europe also has a lot of work to do on this count
804876
Democracy:  Everyone votes for everything.\n\nRepublic:  Voters choose representatives to vote on issues.
983388
Advantages of a Unicameral System:\n\n    * There is the potential to enact proposed legislation more rapidly, since differences don’t have to be reconciled by two chambers.\n    * There is the potential of greater accountability, since only one body is responsible for legislation.\n    * It is less expensive to maintain one body and fewer legislative members. \n\nIn many cases, one chamber (usually the lower house) has the final say in determining the composition of a bill.\n\n    * In Slovenia, the upper house, National Council, has the power to veto any law within seven days of its adoption by the lower house, National Assembly. However, the National Assembly may override the veto with a simple majority.\n\n    * In Russia, the Federation Council (upper house) may reject a law passed by the Duma (lower house), but the Duma may override the Federation Council with a two-thirds majority.
390478
The ancient Greeks, who invented democracy, had a philosopher who said." every government tends to fail by excess of its own basic principle". I cannot recall his name.\n\nThe USA was an experiment in government modeled partly on ancient Greece as revealed to europeans again during the renaissance when monks found old greek teachings and lore in Muslim libraries during the crusades that were translated and taken to Europe. This ended the dark ages in Europe.\nAlso the USA copied some native American government models.\nThe basic principle of USA is democracy rather than Monarchy, so it is this very aspect of our own government that threatens to topple it. Certainly it is made worse by ignorant masses that vote, but it is the power to vote that makes this ignorance dangerous. Not the ignorance per se.\nIf USA were an enlightened dictatorship, then this would not be a problem as the wise and kind ruler would protect the idiots from themselves.\nBut we let anyone vote. They need not own property, or be educated,or even be literate. They can still vote at age 18. This has made the gathering of the votes of morons a big business. This democratic system will be the undoing of USA as the morons are led to the slaughter by the evil geniuses that manipulate them and eventually will enslave them. Part of the con is to make working for the man a moral obligation (ha ha) Then paying taxes to a corrupt government becomes a growing legal obligation. Then obeying religious leaders and tithing. The rest is like taking candy away from a baby. The only reason the trap is not yet sprung is because evil factions are still fighting over the slaves. Once they end their war or have a truce, USA and all its freedoms is doomed.\nOH YEAH, they also do not want to kill the goose that laid the golden egg so it is better to let the fools think they are free as long as possible. We dont want no revolution! First thing to do is to distract them with drugs, TV and false issues to divide them. Then ruin the schools so nobody will ever get smart enough to see what is happening. It is really easy and almost done. so long suckers!
308107
Democracy is the best we've had so far.  I would like to see more direct democracy in the future.\n\nThe converse of democracy is a dictatorship.  There are many advantages to a dictatorship as well.  Countries with dictatorships essentially take a greater gamble.  A democracy will never vote in the best leader for a country, because the average IQ and political knowledge of a country is not great enough to make this decision.  A dictatorship with a perfect leader would enjoy a strong government for the leader's lifetime.\n\nThe problem with a dictatorship is that when a bad leader is in place, or when power gets the better of them, the country is stuck with them.\n\nKeep in mind that the most deadly dictator of our time, Hitler, was born out of a German democracy.  Now, Hitler never won more than 37% of the vote.  Somehow, the majority government fell and handed the power to him by default.  \n\nAll I can say is that we still have a lot to learn about what makes a great government system.\n\n\np.s...I agree with the comments about communism, but must mention that this is a separate issue from democracy.  A Democratic Communist state could theoretically exist, and it may just happen in the future.  Keep in mind that it may be much ado about nothing.  We call ourselves a Capitalist state, but are far from the true meaning of Capitalist.  All in all, we are a mild socialist state.   Likewise, a future Democracic Communist state would likely not be a true communist state, but simply a stronger form of socialist state.\n\nIe.,,,the possible futures of China or Russia.
662761
=====================\nThere's a quote by Winston Churchill that says something like: "Democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the others."\n\nRepresentative government means that people elect people to represent them in government.  \n\nIts advantage is that everyone is involved in government activities.  Everyone works and fights for the same cause.  Representative governments supposedly give everybody a chance to succeed and have their problems in the world resolved.  Supposedly, there are checks and balances so that no one group takes power and uses it against others.  That's why we have 3 branches - executive, legislative and judicial.  You have different people making laws, different people enforcing the laws, and different people judging whether or not the laws and their enforcement fit the Constitution.\n\nNow please do your own homework, silly!  Make it up if you have to.
643163
The pros are: We know we have a huge problem in America.\nThe cons are: We know we have a huge problem in America.
191521
To the extent that it allows everyone to voice an opinion and choose a result by majority vote. There is some scientific evidence that large groups arrive at correct or viable answers to problems more often than one person or small groups.\n\nNo country today is a democratic country, because none allow direct votes by all the eligible voters on all issues. Instead, we tend to have what are called republics, in which smaller groups of voters elect persons to vote in their place on issues.\n\nAnd, whether democracy or republic, the fewer the people who participate, the less likely the outcome is the best for the country. Also, the more restraints by the leaders of the country on dissent and opposition, the less effective the leaders are in representing most of the people. These leaders, like George Bush and Dick Cheney, set themselves up as Plato's philosopher-kings, who know best, and let no one try to talk them out of what they are doing.