0
Democracy
Democracy is a type of government characterized by a "rule of the people." In most democracies, citizens are equal and have the ability to vote for their political leaders.
1,484 Questions
What questions would help you determine if democracy exists in a country?
"Does everyone have the right to vote?" , "Is there equality for all people under the law in the country?"
it divides up power and lets the people decide. well, in ancient athens.
Turner claimed that the frontier was crucial to the development and extension of American democracy because it provided opportunities for individual economic and social mobility. The frontier allowed Americans to escape the constraints of the crowded East Coast and build new lives on the frontier lands. Turner argued that this process of settlement and expansion helped to shape American democratic ideals by fostering a sense of self-reliance, independence, and equality among the settlers.
Who makes the final decision in a democracy?
In a democracy, the final decision is typically made by the electorate, who vote for their representatives in government. These elected officials, in turn, make decisions on behalf of the citizens. Ultimately, the power lies with the people, as they can influence or change their leaders through elections and referendums. The processes and structures may vary by country, but the principle of popular sovereignty remains central to democratic governance.
What did political scientist Larry Bartels demonstrate in his book Unequal Democracy?
In Unequal Democracy, political scientist Larry Bartels demonstrates that elected officials are substantially more responsive to the concerns of their more affluent constituents than to those of their poorer constituents.
What English institution contribute greatly to American democracy?
The English institution that contributed greatly to American democracy is the British Parliament. The American colonists drew inspiration from the English Parliament's system of representative government, including the concept of a bicameral legislature with a House of Commons and a House of Lords. The ideas and structures of English parliamentary democracy influenced the development of the United States' own system of government.
What is a value Alexis De Tocqueville saw as essentially American?
Egalitarianismwas a value that de Tocqueville saw as essentially American.
How does one Democratize the Media?
There's a huge debate going on right now about the role of the media in US politics. And two of the main questions are: "How much are the media to blame for fueling the rise of Donald Trump?" And, "What's the real relationship between Trump and the media?"
Nicholas Kristof recently gave his opinion on the matter in the The New York Times. He explains that, "Those of us in the news media have sometimes blamed Donald Trump's rise on the Republican Party's toxic manipulation of racial resentments over the years. But we should also acknowledge another force that empowered Trump: Us."
It's really not an either/or proposition though; those two things go hand in hand.
The prevalence of right-wing hate rhetoric and the rise of Trump make it clear why, now more than ever, we need to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine and democratize our media.
Between 1949 and 1987, the Fairness Doctrine was a longstanding policy of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required broadcasters to give air time to controversial issues of public importance, and to do so in a fair manner without editorial input from advertisers.
But after the FCC stopped the Fairness Doctrine under President Ronald Reagan in 1987, broadcast corporations stopped having to worry about broadcasting in the public interest. Because the main way that stations "programmed in the public interest" was by producing news -- real, actual, non-infotainment news -- and once Reagan lifted that requirement, the news divisions of the various networks came under the sway of ratings and profits.
News was no longer the cost of keeping your broadcast license; instead, it became an opportunity to make more money with increasingly shallow and salacious reporting.
Perhaps coincidentally, just a few months after the FCC did away with the Fairness Doctrine, Rush Limbaugh launched his show, and in the years following, conservative-owned corporations put commentators like Sean Hannity and Michael Savage on stations nationwide, so that listeners could tune in to right-wing hate radio from pretty much anywhere in the country at any time of the day or night.
This was given a huge boost by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as well as a few other smaller laws and changes in FCC policy, that let a small handful of corporations buy up all the radio stations, TV stations and newspapers in communities from coast to coast. Many of those radio stations were then programmed with hyper-corporate-friendly right-wing hate radio.
It's been a big factor in the rightward-shift of our country over the past 30 years. And without the Fairness Doctrine and ownership rules in place, other broadcasters started to be more concerned about their corporate interests -- their bottom lines -- instead of the public interest.
Donald Trump's candidacy has forced every media outlet to choose whether to serve the public interest by challenging his outlandish and dangerous rhetoric, or to serve their corporate interest by simply turning on the cameras and letting the film roll every time Trump does or says something outlandish. And they're choosing their corporate interests.
This isn't just speculation that the media is making this choice -- it's exactly what CBS President Les Moonves recently told a group of investors.
That explains why Andrew Tyndall reported last year that Donald Trump got 234 minutes of free coverage on the major nightly network news shows in 2015, as opposed to Bernie Sanders, who got less than 10 minutes of coverage from those shows over the same period.
And it explains why Trump has received nearly $2 billion worth of free media during this campaign cycle, as opposed to Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, who's gotten less than half of that.
Les Moonves said it: The corporate media simply doesn't care about the well-being of the United States.
And corporate media don't really care about covering real issues that impact the public, like climate change or net neutrality, let alone covering those issues honestly or objectively. The corporate media only care about the bottom line, about ratings and about getting more money from their advertisers.
The fact is, the media didn't really create Trump.
The media have just been waiting for a candidate like Trump to come along ever since Reagan killed the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, and then Bill Clinton further cemented media consolidation with the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
In a speech at Syracuse University, President Obama rightfully pushed back against the profit-centric mentality of the media and the attitudes of network executives like Les Moonves.
The reality is the corporate media have proven that when left to their own devices, they value corporate responsibility to shareholders higher than social responsibility to inform the electorate about controversial issues of public importance.
Without the Fairness Doctrine and a roll-back of the ownership rules in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, media companies have no reason to act in the public interest, and no reason to cover inform people about issues of public importance like climate change, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, net neutrality or runaway income inequality.
There's a reason the framers of the Constitution wrote the press into the First Amendment: Democracy can't thrive without an informed electorate.
It's time to democratize the media, and that means it's time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine and to reinstate media ownership rules so a small handful of wealthy right-wingers no longer dictate our daily media diet.
What is democratic corporatism?
Democratic Corporatism is where a government gives public dollars to private bankers, insurance and drug firms, in the hope that such largesse will compel those firms to change.
Is democracy based on a balance of power?
Not really. While the two concepts are often tied together it would certainly be possible to have a democracy without having a balance of power. Democracy is based on the idea that the citizenry has the right to vote on the laws or government policies either directly (by voting on such policies in referendums) or indirectly (by voting for representatives who vote on such policies). Balances of power within a government usually relate to federal/provincial relations. In smaller countries, there is no such dichotomy, since there is only one state with different administrative regions that have very little local power, such as the Republic of Korea.
What is the meaning and importance of a free and responsible press to our democracy?
A free and responsible press is essential to democracy as it serves as a watchdog, holding power to account and providing citizens with the information necessary to make informed decisions. It fosters transparency and accountability in government, while also promoting diverse viewpoints and facilitating public discourse. Additionally, a responsible press respects ethical standards and avoids misinformation, which is crucial for maintaining trust and integrity within the democratic process. Ultimately, it empowers citizens to participate actively in their governance and to challenge injustices effectively.
Who else wrote about civic culture besides Almond-Verba with their Civic Culture from 1963?
Seymour Lipset is the other writer who wrote about the civic culture besides Almond-Verba.
Why is Singapore a socialist yet under democracy?
Simply put, because socialism doesn't mean no one gets to vote.
Singapore operates on a parliamentary system (like Congress in the United States). The parliament is elected by the people based on locality, and those members of parliament represent the will of their constituents in government.
Singapore's government is democratic, and their President is elected by the people in a direct vote, just like the United States.
Singapore is deemed a "hybrid" of socialist and capitalist economic structures by most economists, because it has many areas that are regulated by their federal government.
Despite this however, Singapore does allow private enterprise, private investment, and private wealth including property.
Essentially, it's a blend of capitalism and socialism economically, but it is a democracy in terms of the functions of government.
What are some reasons that democracy seems to contribute to greater gender equality?
Because they have the ability to run for local office and influence those that son't see that as a norm in there part of the country.
Is a direct democracy found in large or small groups of people?
In small countries, or groups of peole. They do not elect representatives, they go to a kind of meeting or assembly and speak for themselves.
