Democracy

i do not know. this question is too hard to answer, therefore i will not produce an answer and instead, type this ridiculous paragraph talking about how i ca not answer this question. i have no idea what a presidential democracy is, have never heard of one, and maybe shall never learn about it. sorry i disapointed you. please do not be angry with me. i was trying to be funny. if this is not funny to you i am sorry. you need to get a sense of humor and a life. Goodbye.

Democracy is a form of government in which the rulers are elected by the people based on free and fair elections,where every person has one vote and each has one value.Also in a democratic government major elections are taken by elected leaders,there is rule of law and respect for rights.

democracy is the better form of government because it accountable form of government,it also improves the quality of decision making,it enhances the dignity of of the citizens and it also allows us to correct its mistakes.

The internet allowed access to more news and information.

Democracy, stictly speaking, is an idealistic state. It does not exist & never will. It is unachievable. Yes, I accept that I have a vote in all sorts of elections. And just who decides who I am able to vote for ? & do they represent me ? Do they ****** !!! The problem is that no matter who you vote for the government get elected. Putting it simply the problem is that if the vote is 49% vs 51% then the 49% should accept the decision. Breath holding at this point is not reccomended.

Since society and humankind are constantly evolving, so must our democracy.

Collective Democracy is where a nation's laws are decided by the majority vote. If there's a proposition to ban breathing and 51% of the voter's vote for it, then you have just outlawed breathing! The other 49% lose a right to the 51%. An outrageous example for sure, however it simply illustrates how dangerous collective democracy could become to the rights of individuals.

This is how the United States is governed.

Unbeknownst to the average american, this nation was founded as a constitutional republic. This is where the bill of rights and constitution are the law of the land. Individual rights are for everyone!

He argued for democracy, but not for liberty, claiming that anyone who disagrees with the general will should be forced to follow it. I doubt Rousseau would support dictatorship, though. He seems to be advocating something like an "absolute democracy" with full political equality, a true democracy rather than a republic, and he explicitly says that political parties would dilute or ruin a political system based on the general will. A dictatorship clashes with this completely because whoever rules the country is not politically equal with the rest of the people and can establish a tyranny of an individual or a tyranny of a party. He is arguing for a tyranny of the majority.

a DONKEY

Because that's what a democracy is. A country ran by the people.

Voting is good. It is a means by which citizens participate in a democracy. If citizens do not participate in a democracy, then there will be no democracy, and the alternative is some form of autocracy, and that generally does not work out well.

barack obama is our leader in democracy

The theory underlying Êmodern or current democracies was Êestablished to challenge the idea that those of royal birth have total authority to rule. Modern democracies countries Êallow Êeligible citizens to elect their leaders.

The underlying assumption of this question, which is that constitutional monarchies are considered democracies by dint of being constitutional monarchies, is false. "Constitutional Monarchy" simply means that the power of the monarch (king) is limited by a constitution. This constitution can be enforced by some kind of oligarchy, aristocracy, or the common gentry. If the constitution is enforced by an oligarchy or aristocracy, the resulting state is not a democracy, whereas if it is enforced by the common gentry, it is democratic.

Now, since almost all current constitutional monarchies are of this latter variety (monarchies with a constitution enforced by common people), people generally drop the intermediate step of separating non-democratic constitutional monarchies from democratic constitutional monarchies and refer to constitutional monarchies as a form of democracy.

The people have the power, they elect and can represent other people

India has several neighbors: Pakistan, China, Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka. Immediately, we can remove China and Myanmar from any discussion of democracy since these are both authoritarian regimes. Pakistan is a quasi-democracy and quasi-junta while Bhutan is a near-absolute monarchy. However, Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka have democracy, even if it is tenuous in each.

I'ts Madisons Argument... thats all i know sorry

1. exports
2. direct foreign investments

Because educated people can understand their rights and duties.

No I don't. The way our government is set up now is meant to protect the minority. If it was a direct democracy, the majority would continually have control, and the minority would eventually become fed up to the point that they revolted.

because in pakistan general mussaraf led a military coup in october 1999. he overthrew democratically elected goverent and declares himseif the cheif executive of the country. later he changes his designation to president and in 25002 held a referendum . he used dirty tricks and malpractices to win the referendum.

because if you have more representatives, than they can do more than other small cities can do. representatives are important to have because they do almost everything for you. ( dont study this just in case cause it might be wrong)

The government would be a democratic republic

It depends on the country and their specific laws and regulations. Some democratic societies allow felons to vote, while others do not. In general, the decision may vary based on the severity of the crimes committed and the individual's status, such as whether they are serving time in prison or have completed their sentence.

Because it is beginning to look like the most stable way of organising a society.