Is a referendum a democratic right?
970950
This is the way it is for the Swiss, get enough names and you can have a referendum.\n\nOwing to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty a binding referendum cannot be held in the UK.\n\nAs for rights I'm not sure we have any rights, by right. Who gives us them? You only get what you push for.
914349
Absolutely NOT. \n\nThis would be contrary to everything democracy stands for.\n\nEvery person of voting age should have an equal right to vote - anything else is not democracy and leads to the type of elite-ism satirised in George Orwell's animal farm - all people will be equal but some people will be more equal than others.\n\nWhat is more, I refuse to limit my answer on such an important issue to 25 words and there is not a damned thing you can do about it. \n\nI will use my right of free speech and my right to vote no matter how much you might disagree with my ability to choose wisely. \n\nToo many people don't have this luxury and too many people died ensuring I do have it. I will treasure and defend my right and the right of others to speak and vote freely.
902346
The earliest recorded history of direct democrcay would be the one practiced by the Greeks. They would all asemble at the market place and would discuss and would vote on matters of state but as the population grow, it became evident that there would not only be logical concerns but peace and order as well. And so representative democracy was born.\n\nImagine in the US if every bill that will be passed, the entire US population would go to debate how the bill will be phrased, worded, revised and voted. Even the country you mentioned is no longer near the pure democracy espoused by the Greeks because someone crafts the bill before tossing it to the population for the vote.\n\nIn the end, a look at US Constitution would tell us that there is still traces of direct democracy in the U.S. During the last midterm election, we have seen states voting for different referendums and ammendments. Californias exercised direct democracy by calling for a re-call. And amendments were added to the US Consitution through direct democracy.
611292
Yeah, that'd be nice but whats "right for the people" can be seen differently by different people. Thats what parties are for, to bring different views to the situation so that there's always more choices for the people to vote on.
1033279
No, a parliamentary democracy is by far the most representative form of democracy that has been created thus far. Don't blow it.
815780
Not the label, not the country, not the people, but the true democracy written in her constitution.\nFor true democracy, I understand as real equality, real freedom, real happiness. I need not to go to that land, because I can enjoy true democracy where I am standing.
960466
Hahahahahahaha\n\nSeriously, I'm not sure - the right to vote maybe?
641784
Referendum: An election held on a single issue. Electors can either vote YES or NO (indicating that they agree or disagree with the motion)\n\nInitative: An idea that is put to a referendum by a group of concerned electors\n\nProposals: An idea that is drawn up by a group of concerned electors
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.
905791
Sometimes local or State laws are put to "referendum".  That means the voters have a direct relationship as to whether the law gets passed or not.  Otherwise the only thing you can do is write to your representatives and tell them how you feel about a particular law or issue and they vote to their conscience, perhaps taking the citizen's opinions into account.
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.....
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.
46752
Good point :)\n\nOf course, by "democracy" we usually mean "freedom to vote for the leaders we like". And oh look, Condi Rice cut off aid to the Palestinian government.
227136
Well after the Supreme Court decided that assisted suicide is a states' rights issue, it is well with in the right of South Dakotans to elect representatives to pass this bill.  There sounds like there will be a referendum, but if the citizens of South Dakota votes for this what's going to happen those who don't like the fact that a state has decided what should be a states rights issue (the same as what Oregon did with assisted suicide) will take the state to court, instead of letting the state make it's own law guaranteed it according to the constitutions concept of implied powers.  Especially considering Roe didn't go through the legislature, but was usurped by the judiciary.\n\nIf the Supreme Court is going to be consistent they will say it's a states rights issue.
766379
This is not a democracy.   It is a democratic-republic.\n\nThe individual's will is subordinate.  The individual gets one vote.\n\nIt is the right of individuals to assemble.  And organize.  And support legislation.\n\nFreedom of speech is the right of every American, even people with whom you disagree.
18122
There is no country that is a pure democracy, meaning every citizen votes for literally every decision. The only place I can think of small enough for this to be practical is Liechtenstein, and they have a constiutional monarchy like Britain. The logistical nightmares of a pure democracy are too difficult to overcome once you get to be the size of even the smallest of nations.\n\nAthens did have a pure democracy in that every citizen was granted the right to vote in the assembly; however, only land-owning men were citizens.
517800
Yes it is. Section 1 of the Constitution (Act 108 of 1996) provides: "The Republic of South Africa is one, sovereign, democratic state founded on the following values..."