Amazon.com Widgets
  • No i dont think so

    ITS THE REASON WHY KILLARY LOST!! Jjjj jj j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j

  • It is good

    The original definition is this one, and no other. It has been corrupted to mean something else. As has the word anarchy. No other form of democracy should even be called democracy. It has proven it's merits, but minority conflicting interests do not want it. And so it was since the beginning.

  • It is good

    The original definition is this one, and no other. It has been corrupted to mean something else. As has the word anarchy. No other form of democracy should even be called democracy. It has proven it's merits, but minority conflicting interests do not want it. And so it was since the beginning.

  • Little chance for revelution

    Since democracy is based on public will, there is no chance of public revolt. Representatives elected by the people conduct the affairs of the state with public support. If they don't work efficiently or don't come up to the expectations of their masters i.E., the public, they are thrown in the dustbin of history when elections are held again. Gilchrist opines that democracy or popular governments always function with consensus and therefore question of revolt or revolution does not arise.

  • Little chance for revelution

    Since democracy is based on public will, there is no chance of public revolt. Representatives elected by the people conduct the affairs of the state with public support. If they don't work efficiently or don't come up to the expectations of their masters i.E., the public, they are thrown in the dustbin of history when elections are held again. Gilchrist opines that democracy or popular governments always function with consensus and therefore question of revolt or revolution does not arise.

  • Little chance for revelution

    Since democracy is based on public will, there is no chance of public revolt. Representatives elected by the people conduct the affairs of the state with public support. If they don't work efficiently or don't come up to the expectations of their masters i.E., the public, they are thrown in the dustbin of history when elections are held again. Gilchrist opines that democracy or popular governments always function with consensus and therefore question of revolt or revolution does not arise.

  • Little chance for revelution

    Since democracy is based on public will, there is no chance of public revolt. Representatives elected by the people conduct the affairs of the state with public support. If they don't work efficiently or don't come up to the expectations of their masters i.E., the public, they are thrown in the dustbin of history when elections are held again. Gilchrist opines that democracy or popular governments always function with consensus and therefore question of revolt or revolution does not arise.

  • Little chance for revelution

    Since democracy is based on public will, there is no chance of public revolt. Representatives elected by the people conduct the affairs of the state with public support. If they don't work efficiently or don't come up to the expectations of their masters i.E., the public, they are thrown in the dustbin of history when elections are held again. Gilchrist opines that democracy or popular governments always function with consensus and therefore question of revolt or revolution does not arise.

  • Little chance for revelution

    Since democracy is based on public will, there is no chance of public revolt. Representatives elected by the people conduct the affairs of the state with public support. If they don't work efficiently or don't come up to the expectations of their masters i.E., the public, they are thrown in the dustbin of history when elections are held again. Gilchrist opines that democracy or popular governments always function with consensus and therefore question of revolt or revolution does not arise.

  • Representative democracy fails to be a democracy

    In a direct democracy all citizens meet together and make decisions via a vote (in Switzerland 4 times a year they vote on current issues). In a representative democracy citizens elect leaders who make decisions on their behalf.

    However your representative might ignore your vote entirely, be swayed by corporate pressure or party pressure (then you vote is useless - so to me not really a democracy at all)

  • No, pure democracy is not the best form of government.

    Pure democracy is not the best form of government, as the general public is not always informed enough (and shouldn't be) to make decisions about everything in their life. There needs to be elected officials who make general policy for the good of the "general public". If everyone got an equal vote on everything, nothing would get accomplished.

  • No, pure democracy is a very extreme form of government.

    Pure democracy excludes the possibility of representative democracy. In a pure democracy every individual would have to vote on every policy issue brought up to the governing body. Representatives are necessary since it allows everyone to go about their daily lives without interruption. Representatives also can spend more time educating themselves on the issues, which can sometimes lead to better results.

  • No i dont think so

    ITS THE REASON WHY KILLARY LOST!! Jjjj jj j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j

  • Pure democracy could not work in a modern country like America.

    Pure democracy has its roots in ancient Athens which had a relatively small population of very educated males who were allowed to make decisions. If we tried to implement a pure democracy in America, it would be unorganized, chaotic, and no decisions would ever be made. There are already so many problems in congress due to people having conflicted beliefs and not being willing to compromise, imagine blowing that up to a national scale, nothing would ever get done. The biggest issue with pure democracy is how many issues the average citizen would be expected to be informed on. We cannot expect every person to be able to make an informed opinion and vote on foreign policy, immigration, health care, and other even more minor issues. In conclusion, a pure democracy would result in chaos and is not something we can expect to work in a large, diverse country like America.

  • It can cause problems

    A pure democracy can cause a lot of problems by what other people think which is there own opinion. Conducting numerous votes during the year make pure democracy a poor choice as a form of government, and for sure not the best form of government. They vote directly on policy.

  • Pure Democracy Cannot Survive

    A 'Pure Democracy' is where every member of the society votes on every decision with a vote that carries equal weight. In such a society, every member must be expert in every field and possess full understanding of all strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats. Every member of the society must be fully trustworthy because every member must have a top secret security classification. All facts must be fully open to all members of the society equally, yet hidden from enemies of the society. All members must not only be experts in every field, but they must simultaneously be fully productive in work. Within work all of the same elements apply for every member of society. All workers must have equal voice in every decision and actively, continuously exercise that responsibility.
    'Pure Democracy' is impossible. There is an impossible amount of information that must be acquired, disseminated, digested and used by all, at all times, in everything. One member choosing to not vote on one decision only one time, destroys the 'Pure Democracy'.

  • It could lead to issues

    While I am not completely against the idea of a pure democracy Government, I worry that sometimes it could lead to more issues in the future. Some people in this world simply need to know what they can and can't do, and should not be able to set their own rules.

  • No, pure democracy not the best form of government.

    Pure democracy is basically mob mentality. A mob can easily be swayed by passions and can make some very poor decisions. Individuals lose their freedom, rights, etc. very easily under such a system. In a true democracy whatever the majority want is made into law. There are some simple quotes that illustrate the poor government true democracy would be. "3 wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner."
    The constitutional republic system we have in America is much better at ensuring important freedoms for us, along with giving different populations and view points a strong voice in government.
    Plus, let's be honest, most Americans do not understand things like tax codes, economics, etc. They haven't the time between work and leisure activities to keep abreast on everything that one needs to know to run a country. It's better to elect a representative with more experience that can represent your geopolitical views.

  • No, pure democracy is not the best form of government.

    No, I believe that pure democracy is not the best form of government and that instead the system we have in place, a representative democracy, is the best form of government. Democracy is very important and should be integral in any governmental system, and using a representative democracy has more advantages over a pure democracy.

  • No, a pure democracy is not the best form of government.

    A pure democracy is flawed in several ways. The voting system in the United States, for example, is flawed in that there are only a few potential candidates. A population will never entirely agree with a candidate. There are only two major political parties, neither of which are perfect on their own. The chosen "leader" of a country may not represent the ideologies of all of the people, but only a few, yet they must still decide on their appointed leader.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.