is democracy better served in coalition governments or in a two-party system government?
957620
The Two-party system barely qualifies as democracy.  At least with a coalition government, everyone gets a chance to voice their opinion, and have some input as to how things are done.
812498
Representative democracy is just elected officials making the laws and decisions for the majority.  Direct democracy is not feasible because of the large numbers of people.  Even in a smaller community, you would have thousands of people who would want to speak about each and every thing that came up.  \n\nIn government, there is a thing called "The Iron Law of Oligarchy," which means no matter how much you try to maintain direct democracy, eventually there comes a need for representaties to speak for the majority, instead of individuals speaking for themselves.
94069
The two party system is as old as the country itself.  actually, it is patterened after the house of commons in merry ole England.  If you think our party system is volitile, you should see and hear the antics used over there.  the two party system works as well as any other, probably better, given its longevity. I vote that we leave it alone except for one factor, that is popular vote.  I believe that we should still base our outcomes on the popular vote of this country.  In this way, the people have truly spoken! By the way, the hell with abroad.  We owe no other nation, or group of people, an explanation as to the domestic decisions of this country.
1033279
No, a parliamentary democracy is by far the most representative form of democracy that has been created thus far. Don't blow it.
423903
Yes democracy is.The people are the legislature in a democracy.
219750
I think a minority government is actually beneficial as it encourages the parties to work together. Smaller parties like the NDP get more input and have more influence, so there's real purpose to having multiple parties in Parliament.\n\nThe problem with a Presidential government is the vetos. If the President is not the same party as the House and/or Senate, then a lot of legislation ends up getting vetoed by one or the other and nothign gets done. There's less incentive to work together because there's no danger of non-confidence bringing down the government.
328481
How can you differentiate .  A democratic government is based on a democratic parliament which is based on a democratic government and so on and so forth there is no difference
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.
430518
There shouldn't be. The Central Government should be respopnsible for ensuring your safety, health and education. Everything else is more effectively dealt with at a local and/or state level.\n\nA strong central government is meant to deal with large issues. Unfortunately, most central governments now micr-manage the minutae of your day-to-day life. That isn't how the founders of democracy envisioned it. Fortunately, democracy allows for the evolution of government. It will mutate to fit our needs.\n\nAs Winston Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government...except all the others that have been tried from time to time."
258034
"A party system is a concept in political science concerning the system of government in a state where political parties exist.\n\nThe party system of a state determines how many political parties in a state have a realistic chance of becoming the government, usually through winning elections. Party systems are usually created by a variety of factors, such as the type of electoral system used in a state. For example, the use of First Past the Post in elections to a state's primary legislative assembly (for example general elections) usually results in a two-party system (this theory is called Duverger's law).\n\nA two-party system is a form of party system where only two major political parties exists with a realistic chance of winning an election. Usually this means that the candidates of the two parties that get the most votes hold all, or nearly all, elected offices. Coalition governments occur only rarely in two-party systems, though each party may internally look like a coalition.\n\nTwo-party systems have historically occurred commonly in the so-called Anglosphere nations such as the United Kingdom and former British colonies like Jamaica, New Zealand and the United States. While Americans and Britons often see the two-party system as natural, based on their long experiences with it, it in fact comes about as a product of particular rules and conventions (especially those involving first-past-the-post voting). The two parties that dominate at any particular time thus have an incentive to keep the existing rules in operation, so as to prevent electoral erosion to the benefit of smaller parties."\n\nAnother viewpoint comes from Debbie O'Hara:\n\n"America's political system as set up by our Founding Fathers had no political parties or factions. It wasn't that they didn't know about political parties, but that they were unwelcome. When looking at the factions of Europe, our Founders didn't like what they saw - political intrigue, conspiracy, and hostile divisions. They were afraid that such a system would rip apart the Union. They hoped that in free elections it would be natural for the best men to rise to the top and be elected to office. That is why before the rise of political parties (which made necessary the Twelfth Amendment), the man with the most votes was president and the man with the second most was vice-president. While in a fallen world it might be a bit unrealistic to expect that factions would not appear among diverse peoples, what rule tells us that we must work within a two-party system rather than voting for the best individuals? We have been propagandized into believing that there are only two viable parties because it is much easier for the enemies of a free America to exercise control within a two-party system than to deal with individuals."
575623
Yes. A lot of people fail to make this distinction, but socialism is a type of economy, whereas democracy is a type of government.\n\nFrance and Mexico both have Republican democracies, both very similar to the U.S.'s form of government.
1067919
I'll do my best.  Republicans favor a small, inexpensive government and, therefore, lower taxes, as well as a strong military.\n\nDemocrats favor a large government that will collect higher taxes and dole out governmental support, and they prefer a small military.\n\nIn a nutshell, that's it.
238907
Democracies are cooperative systems.  As such, they must be voluntarily entered into.  You cannot order a democracy into existance, likewise, you must voluntarily surrender your own autonomy.\n\nFor an outsider to deem a governmental system as democratic, it needs the voluntary assent of the governed.  The governed need some safe mechanism to make their desires effective.  In most places this is through voting, although caucusing is often used.  Representation for a period of time through a system of popular selection would be sufficient with right of redress.  In addition, a set of rights to protect the minority from the majority should be in place.\n\nThe problem with the war in Iraq is the Bush administration does not understand that democracy is a cooperative system and cannot be imposed.
37196
Democracy is a form of government where the people make the decisions. People mistake the US for a democracy, but we are not. We select the people that make the decisions, and this is what a republic is about.
391389
You should try a Parliamentary Democracy! Which is in pretty much the rest of the world.) Trying not to get into grave detail, A mutli-party system probably wouldn't work as well in America as it does in other countries. The main reason why is because in America we have relaxed party discipline, meaning that politicians in America can vote however they want to, they do not have to listen to the party. In a Parliamentary Democracy, if you vote against the party a lot, you are moved down lower in the overall party rank (which means they get less funding for reelection/many other consequences). The majority party has 50%+ of the seats in Parliament and pretty much all of the politicians vote on party lines getting legislation passed fairly fast and easy. If we the U.S. adopted your form of government, it would be hard for the government to agree on one issue and get it passed. Also, as history shows with America's current form of government, the party that controls the White House could be different than the party that controls one or both Houses of Congress. \n\nI don't understand the last part about single party governments, but as history shows they are not the most effienct way to govern.
570256
Because two-party systems and lack of run-off provisions are inherently undemocratic, unsuitable for large countries and ones with lots of competing interests.\n\n"Why, orangemike," you say, "but the United States is a large country with lots of competing interests!"\n\nYes it is.\n\nIt is only since the First World War, when the two major parties acquired monopolistic control over the state and national legislative bodies, and started legislating all competing groups into permanent obscurity, that the United States has been without any viable alternatives to the major parties.  Prior to that, some places had as many as four viable parties, plus fringe groups.  (Wisconsin, for example, had the Republicans, Progressives, Democrats, and Socialists.)  Political scientists have strained long and hard to find excuses why this is a good thing, instead of a betrayal of democracy; most of them boil down to, "Don't rock the boat!"\n\nThere are several Yahoo! Groups filled with people who think this is an unhealthy thing. These include FAIRELECTIONSCOALITION, Voice4all, and instantrunoff (that I can think of offhand).\n\nThe obvious cures are: improved ballot access;  proportional representation; and instant runoff (the interests of the above three groups).
793458
1.  Because most americans really ARE either a Dem or a Rep.\n\n2.  most countries end up falling into a two party system.  It's certainly better than a one party system, and with too many parties, they end up having to form coalitions to create a majority.  So- basically a two party system kinda' works.  Ya' can't give people too many choices.