how does limiting the role of money in politics restore intergity in democracy?
402368
Big corporations give big money which then requires elected officials to push policies that promote the needs and wants of the companies.  If an elected official had to have a bake sale to pay for the elction it may change how they vote on major issues such as medical care and recycle... no large companies pulling the strings and a politition may actually have to think for himself.  WOW!  A congress person who had to think for themselves.  What a world.
178565
A French Diplomat said in the late 1700's that the Democracy would last only as long as it took for the masses to realize that they could vote themselves money out of the public trough.\n\nThat's happening now.  Ineligible people are on welfare and unemployment, illegals are clogging our services, and "progressive" politicians are voting more and more benefits.
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.
382484
Politicians, by their very nature, tend make decisions based on self-interest, not based on whether it's right for the people. In the most extreme form, they do things for PERSONAL GAIN, at worst to use their political influence to bring them huge sums of money.
1168637
As soon as the political parties believe in someone's ability to win and the party grooms that person.  Actually, the ability to win is in a tie with the ability to bring money to the party, because its not about the presidency, its about the money.  So as soon as there is a black politician who can not just raise huge sums of cash, but gets even more donated to the national political parties then it would just be a matter of the electorate voting them in.
870539
The problem with all but the first of those suggestions is that they take power AWAY from the people:  If I want to exercise my freedom of speech to tell people what I think about a candidate by buying advertising using money that I earned honestly you think it should be illegal?  Or if I'm not that rich I can't get together with a bunch of other people who think similarly and pool our money to do the same thing?  How is that giving me power? \n\nThe real solution is to start holding government power to the limits set up for it in the constitution.  When it can't buy votes with tax money, most of the reasons for corruption will disappear.  Of course this is unlikely to happen because most people like it when the government taxes other people to buy them goodies, so they'll never tell their representatives "No, don't send money taken from tax payers by force to help us build our city a pork barrel project, pay for health care for the poor, run our schools, etc. If enough people want the project then it can be built with private funds; if not, then we shouldn't build it.  Charity should be funded by voluntary charitable contribution, not money taken by force.  etc."
1089709
Well, letting ALL parties, even the Maoists, participate in the parlimentary process is a good start.\n\nGoing to have to get rid of the King and his cronies who scrape all the money they can into their pockets.
1007795
democracy-government in which the people directly rule, has maximum tollerance toward religion and cultural identity stresses freedom of speach, stressed importance of innovation and success causses strong economy--draw backs; slow decision making, poor military strength\n\nrepublic-govenment in which elected representatives rule; great tolerance toward religion and cultural identity, stresses freedom of speech, stressed importance of innovation and success causses strong economy--draw backs: mediocre decision making, corruption pressent, weak to mediocre military strength\n\nmonarchy-government in which a hereditary monarchy rules; mediocre to poor tolerance, censored speech, mediocre innovative and sucsess drive makes mediorcre economic strength, good military strength--drawbacks: government does not cause excellent results in any catagory \n\ndespotism-government in which single autocrat rules usualy by being backed by the military and/or a secret police; generaly very low tollerance, heavily censored speach, distribution of wealth to close friends and poor motivation to excel causes economy to suffer, military strong--drawbacks: poor personal freedom causes civil unrest, week economy\n\nconstitutional monarchy-a government where a hereditary monarchy rules only with powers dictated by a constitution; fair to good tolerance, occational censorship of media, good personal freedom causes good economy, fair military--drawbacks:none major\n\noligarchy-govenment in which a council of plutocrats or hereditarily designated members rule; tolerance and free speech depends on benvolence of council, generaly good personal freedoms causes strong economy, weak military--drawbacks: instability of policy\n\ncommunism-govenment in which a premir("representing" the people but not elected by them) directs policy while a politiburo(central party commity) decides issues;no tolerance of religion or cultural identity, heavily censored media, poor personal freedom causes economy to suffer, military strong--drawbacks zero tolerance causes civil unrest, economy weak
352346
Yes.\nUntil we have a public that is educated in political machinations and process, democracy is glorified mob rule. While politicians are becoming more secretive, corporations more powerful, and television stretches its influence as a glass teat of apathy, democracy will remain as mob rule- or at least easily manipulated through fear, catering to the selfish and the fearful more than the future.
760455
You can not impose democracy by gun, simple as that. Democracy comes from within.
1028214
If you are old enough you can vote for someone to represent your interests. You elect a president, senators or any other public office as your representative. Democracy depends on the possibility to vote but it does not end there. Those in charge must truly represent you. If you voted for the guy who lost the elections you cannot say his decisions are not democratic because he is representing the majority of voters, even when you are not one of them, even when you disagree with the decision. But, once he has lost the acceptance of the people and he is been backed by a small minority, once his decision is considered wrong by the majority of people, then he will hold firm to his decision by the effect of power, not of democracy.
389120
Fixed, cemented, and sealed all in one foul swoop!!! We have not had a democracy for a very long time...if ever, and the people with money have the power. I disagree with the person that said we live in a communist state...We are living in a feudalistic state!!!
626237
A Democracy can operate using a number of different voting systems, but essentially needs to ensure that the Government renews its mandate on a regular basis (4 to 5 years).\n\nAll people of a country must be involved in the democratic process.\n\nThe Government must be independant from the Judiciary. The courst must be free to pass judgement based around the laws of the land rather than on the political will of the Government.\n\nThe Government will need support from a non-partisan civil authority to ensure that laws are drafted correctly and constitutionally. The civil authorities also ensure that government policy is carried out.\n\nThe policing of a Democracy must be answerable to the courts as well as the civil authorities.\n\nTaxes pay for all of this.\n\nThe best or worst democracy is a subjective matter. Good or bad is not measurable in a way that allows comparison between the various systems.\n\nYou could survey different populations to take their views, but that will have problems. Bad Governments will try and influence the results and people may answer based around their view of their politicians rather than on the system itself.
200827
This looks REMARKABLY like a homework question.  You really should do a bit of research on this so that you can LEARN the answers.  You need to access some political science journals and I would encourage you to read Robert Dahl (who writes EXTENSIVELY on the subject of emerging democracy) as well as doing a bit of research on TRANSITIONING democratic regimes.....I can steer you but i will NOT give you the answer. ;o)
126226
True the US fore-fathers revolted against a colonial power and gave US its discernible freedom and democracy much in line with what was happening in France.\n\nHowever, in this day and age, democracy allows us to vote out those we don't want or vote in those we want. however the power of the citizenry is not limited there, they can lobby their senators and can band together via lobbies to influence thinking in white house.\n\nSo to answer your question, it is important that the structures built over the years to develop the checks and balances of governance are not eroded - like the free media etc...so strengthen these..and ou will see a stronger US...
648917
Influencing legislation requires two things, or a combination of the two:\n\n1. A billion dollars to bribe politicians (the polite term is "campaign contribution");\n\nor,\n\n2. The support of millions of people who agree with you and are willing to be active in the matter.\n\nMaybe you could find an establihed organization that is working towards similar goals and try to get their support.
1042334
Its a good start, Number one would solve most problems on its own. The rules I would like to add would be;\n5. Politics will become open and free for all people to have their say, a true democracy based on the right to attend law making debates to raise and vote on the issues  that concern you.\n6. Politicians will not be paid, but will only get expenses based on the average wage of a person from the area they represent