No, he is a potato

Democratic government base their authority and legitimacy on the people of their country. If you have a King who rules by virtue of family ties or the will of God or a dictator who rules by fear and physical power over the people you do not have a democratic government.

There are many ways the people of a country can arrange their political affairs to be considered democratic, but it always starts with the people.

Democratic governments typically embrace liberty and freedom as the citizens prefer freedom to tyranny. A well educated and free population is usually a requirement of a successful democratic government as a population that is ignorant, superstitious, and fearful are frequently the target of those who would manipulate them out of their freedoms for their own gain.

Yes, but . . .

There were four parties competing for President in 1860. The Republicans and the Democrats were two, but the Southern Democrats and the Constitutional Union party also were in the mix. Lincoln and Douglas represented the Republican and Democratic Parties. John Bell and John Breckinridge were the candidates of the Constitutional Union and the Southern Democratic Parties.

These were not minor candidates. Breckinridge won eleven states (Basically the deep South) and Bell won three (The Southern border states of Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee.) Douglas, the Democrat in your question, won only one state (Missouri.)

Abraham Lincoln won eighteen States (essentially all of the states outside the South, California and Oregon -- Maryland and Delaware went to Breckinridge.

One way to look at the election; the Democratic Party split into two and there was a third party as well. Adds up to four parties competing for the Presidency in 1860.

Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was elected US House of Representatives minority leader for the 113th Congress, in January 2013.

The pro's are that you get to have say in what is happening in your community, and or state. The con's is probably that many people that turn 18 are still not fully mature.

Trudeau belongs to the political party of the liberals of Canada. He served twice for Prime Minister, from April 20th, 1968 to June 4th, 1979 and once again on March 3rd, 1980 to June 30th, 1984.

they lynched and sometimes killed blacks who tried to vote. they say blacks need to go back to africa but theyre the ones who brought us here. they say mexicans need to go back to mexico but california arizona new mexico were part of mexio until they took theyre land from them and made it america. they did the same thing to the native americans and native australians. they call veryody immigrants except themselves when their ancestors wronhfully took over america so white people are the only real illegal immigrants in america

The most basic answer is that the people rule themselves. Sometimes everyone takes part as in a direct democracy, although this is rarely practical today. Most societies use some form of representative democracy where elected officials carry out the work of government on our behalf. It is a whole different can of worms about how well we the people oversee our elected officials.

Democrat... they never liked the Republican Union

very much so ....gosh......so talented and to the point, so unlike her husband......guilty of verbosity....all the time ....sad..........

That is a logical question. But it is not an easy one to answer. Most American's income information is confidential, meaning you can't know easily how much any one individual makes in a year. It is even harder to know their net worth; that is, their wealth.

It is also true that Americans vote confidentially; and how they vote is not something that is easily known. So, two tough issues in one question.

The only information typically available says that persons suspected to be worth more than a billion dollars contributes to one party or the other or to one 527 group or another. Information suggests that most billionaires live their lives in peace and do not engage in political contributions or overt activities. The few that do seem to break more or less evenly between the two parties.

"The two-party system" is the answer you are supposed to give. But you are smarter than that. In fact the United States has seen plenty of political parties at the national level. Before the election of Abraham Lincoln there were four parties trying to gain the Presidency. The two-party system is a myth created by lazy text book authors who can't find the time to explain things properly.

The Constitution provides for no political parties. And the founding fathers were not enthused with their development. But political parties formed none the less. And they continue to form in the modern era of our nation. Popular Libertarian Ron Paul has run as a Libertarian and has sought the Republican nomination for President.

So spend some time studying up on our American political parties. And beware of people who tell you that a Democracy and a Republic are two different things.

The democratic leader is a leadership style wherein the leader includes one or more employees or associates in the decision making process.

Decisions may be the result of a coalescence of opinion directed by the democratic leader, a consensus of opinion wherein participants agree on a course of action or finally a vote where the majority of interested parties direct the verdict.

Leaders with democratic qualities are found in many modern situations, some, such as legislatures, depend on voting routinely, others such as business situations where voting is typically not appropriate.

Joe Bidden is a Catholic in name only as he supports abortion rights, gay marriage and other issues that go against Catholic teaching. The term for these people is 'Cafeteria Catholics' as they pick and choose what parts of Church teaching they will follow. That is like calling yourself a vegetarian except that you do eat Big Macs. Unfortunately, there are a number of these "Cafeteria Catholics" in high government positions.

1. Organize elections by nominating candidates and seeking office.

2. Build coalitions by attracting group support, pulling groups into the democratic process.

3. Work to simplify political choices.

4. Organize government and policy making, attempting to use the institutions of government to reflect the will of the voters.

Democrats are all for providing energy for America. But Democrats are not limited to just oil and coal based energy without any regard to damage to the environment. Democrats accept alternative types of energy that may need help to be developed. Just as electric cars need help with recharging infrastructure and compressed natural gas cars need help with refilling infrastructure so wind energy and other types of renewable energy sources need assistance to mature.

If Democrats are controversial about energy it is that they believe something other than "Oil and coal forever without regard to the environment." They leave that position to other parties.

Good

After Andrew Jackson's election in 1828, his party became known as the Democratic party.

Simple answer? Because a direct democracy carries many problems that defeat national goals. A direct democracy, while difficult to manage, is subject to whims and fads and managed campaigns that would bend policy toward special interests or simple bad decisions. A non-democratic state fails completely to enact the wishes of its citizenry, while a totally direct democratic state fails to consider policy nuisances.

No. Never was and never has been. It began in 1865 to frighten the former slaves dressed as confederate ghosts. They have killed people, threatened people, and tried to prevent equal rights for former slaves.

he 1968 Democratic National Convention was held in Chicago and Hubert H. Humphrey was selected as the presidential candidate. But the was a great deal of dissension inside the convention over the Vietnam War. There were also bloody antiwar demonstrations on the streets and in the parks of Chicago. (link)

The symbols came from a famous political cartoonist named Thomas Nast, who first portrayed Republicans with the elephant symbol in a cartoon for Harper's magazine in 1874. At that time, he meant to imply that the elephant was loyal and strong, but if you got it upset, it could stampede and cause harm. Later, the symbol came to represent only the positive aspects of loyalty and strength.

The idea of the donkey had been used to represent Democrats as far back as the late 1830s, and it too had a somewhat negative meaning at first (the "jackass"-- used as a reference to then-president Andrew Jackson), but later, it came to be associated with stubborn determination. As he had done with the elephant, Nast also popularized the donkey image in his political cartoons.

She is a Democrat who was appointed by Bill Clinton.

Civil Rights

That is, believe it or not, a difficult question to answer for sure.

As parties change their stances, choose new candidates, and go through periods of weakness and strength, the numbers of party members can change dramatically. Also, keep in mind that many Americans choose not to identify with one party or the other, preferring to call themselves independents. Studies have found that many independents do actually vote for one party most of the time, but do not consider themselves partisans, making it harder to figure out exactly how much support a party has. Measuring membership is difficult, since relatively few voters (even very partisan ones) are involved in party operations, and few donate to campaigns. Probably the best way to define party strength is through voters' self-identification.

With these challenges in mind, here's a rough partisan breakdown:

A 2010 Gallup survey found that 31% of voters identify as Democrats, 29% as Republicans, and 38% as independents. Again, these numbers are subject to change year to year (or even week to week), as events change peoples' minds.

Numbers of self-described independents have been rising the last few years, probably due to the near-record high partisanship and gridlock in Washington and state capitals. The rise in independents has hurt the official membership of both parties, but not their vote totals.