Amazon.com Widgets
  • Everybody needs a say.

    You may not actually get a say in a representative election if you vote for a certain party and the other party wins, your vote wasn't really counted, your representative's votes were counted though. Think about actually having a true part in a presidential election instead of supposedly voting for a different person than you did.

  • Trump is Awsome

    Trump is one of the best presidents out there. I hope he wins the next election. That way he can get rid of gays, lesbians and all those other people. I also think he destroys ISIS and iligel immigrants. Liberals are stupid also. They should all drink a Pepsi and be nice.

  • 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.

  • 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)

  • It is the only democracy

    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.

  • Near pure democracy in Switzerland

    Switzerland already has close to pure democracy and its 5th in the world for per capita GDP making the argument pure democracy is costly proven completely and utterly false!!
    When laws are made the people are the ones who have to live with it, you can buy a government in some countries if your a large corporation with enough money, You simply give the candidates who support your company heaps of money to fund there election campaign they end up getting more adds on tv, radio, in the paper then all the other candidates going against them in that race., lose, Meaning parliament/the house etc could be completely corrupted . Pure democracy is the safest and best way forward take this power away from politicians give it to the people!

  • Yes, a pure democracy is the best form of government.

    Pure democracy is the best form of government, because it allows for a government run completely by the people, for the people. This gives the people more freedom and a government more based on what the majority of people want. The key to a pure democracy would be to educate our citizens. With very uneducated citizens a pure democracy would fail, but if we can educate our citizens our government will succeed and flourish. A pure democracy is the perfect ideal of a government, but may be hard to obtain.

  • Publicly funded campaigns and an overturn of Citizens United would make for a more pure democracy.

    Having an educated populace is an American value. It is an ideal. It's nice to be able to elect people we trust to make decisions based on our personal values too. Since 95% of our elections are determined by who has the most money, at the moment we have a corporate run government. The bottom line for corporations don't necessarily reflect what is best for American people or what we value. Therefore, what Rootstrikers and Wolf-pac are trying to accomplish with forming a more pure democracy will help restore our government to the pure democracy that our constitution and declaration of independence declare, and reinstitute our common American values.

  • Total freedom (even if it means to not care)

    I think yes because a pure democracy is the closest a people can get to total freedom. People who are against it say that it won't work because it means that everyone, no matter how busy they are in their daily lives, will have to decide on every political issue concerning the country. However, what a pure democracy could really be is that everyone would have the power to help make decisions on how the territory is run, but they will also have the freedom to not be bovered too. You get people who care about certain issues and people who simply don't. You get people who like to deal with problems and people who'd prefer to just adjust to them. Nonetheless, those who do care are still part of the people, no matter how small a number they are. In a pure democracy you might just end up having only a small percentage of the people who can be bothered to decide on laws and constitutions, the rest would choose to be lazy, but it's still freedom. The people can right out plans on how decisions and augments a settled and vote for the best plan.

  • 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.

  • A pure democracy can bankrupt a govenment

    In a pure democracy, The voters can vote all of the government treasury to themselves. The voters can also vote away all of their rights as there is no fixed set of rules, Such as the US constitution's bill of rights, To prevent them from doing so. You ask, Why would they do that anyway and that would be as a trade off freedoms for the false sense of security.

  • Pure Democracy =people with pitchforks

    Think of antifa mobs deciding how your life is judged. People circled around you throwing rocks at you for being a white male. All of them yelling Nazi at you while kicking the shit out of you, As you stumble they all start stoning you to death because of a vote

  • Pure Democracies abuse minorities.

    A pure democracy is like two wolves and a sheep voting who's for dinner. The sheep will always lose, governments are supposed to protect everyone equally, not enforce the whims and opinions of the majority. A good government is not a bandwagon, it's rooted in the defense of those who live within it.

  • 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.


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