Political Theory

This is a description of pluralism theory, which suggests that democracy is achieved when various interest groups compete and influence government decisions. Pluralism promotes the idea that a diverse range of voices and interests should be represented in the political process.

Pros include the idea of common good, protection of individual rights, and establishment of order in society. Cons involve concerns about the legitimacy of individual consent, potential for exploitation by those in power, and lack of enforcement mechanisms.

The founding fathers instituted a system of checks and balances in Congress to guard against excessive democracy. This included dividing the government into separate branches with distinct powers and instituting a system of representation in which senators were elected by state legislatures and the President was elected through the Electoral College, rather than direct popular vote.

The necessity of listening to a small group's objections and suggestions is an example of the concept of minority rights in American democracy. This principle ensures that even minority viewpoints are heard and considered in decision-making processes to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

It can be argued that pure democracy, the vote of each citizen on every issue affecting everyone, is excessive. Except for in small groups, there has never been a pure democracy governing a state. Ancient Athens was not a pure democracy as non-land holders and women could not vote, yet it was the closest any nation had ever come to it.

The problems of a pure democracy become evident as a majority can vote to restrict or eliminate rights of a minority, evident with passage of "Jim Crow" laws following the US Civil War restricting rights of freed men, not all former slaves.

Another problem would be the ability to consult each and every citizen in the passage of laws for each and every law, slowing the process greatly.

A representative democracy, or republic, speeds this ability, and with checks and balances built in, protects the rights of individuals and minorities.

They do, they have leaders in which the people vote for. But it is said to be "democratic" because the members of the society have rights to oppose to the ideas of the government. Democracy gives equal power to the leaders and its people. The people also have the right to impeach a certain government official (including the president). You can say that democracy is the opposite of monarchy.

I'm not an expert. But is seems that democracy even at its absolute simplest, where every person (or citizen?) has an equal voice and vote on absolutely every question, would still have elements of authoritarianism in it, since the population would still be bound by the majority. There would also be the reality that the rights of minorities would be essentially nullified, whether you are talking about dis-enfranchised non-citizens, or simple minorities of the voting public. Some form of representative government may be the answer.

It's clear that anything approaching an absolute democracy is impossible with much more than 100 individuals involved. It seems that there will always have to be a choice between these two possibilities: some form of authority, or chaos/anarchy. Some people will simply have to do things that they do not prefer. The trick is to establish authority where no individual or group can accumulate too much power.

It is possible to govern a democracy without political parties; however, political parties often play a key role in organizing political activity and providing structure to the democratic process. Without political parties, decision-making and representation may become more decentralized and potentially less effective.

Civil society allows coordination of interests to maintain free flow of information, discussion, and association. These elements are an essential part of the political freedom necessary to allow a democracy to exist by holding the government accountable to the people and not vice-versa.

Not every culture has a unique word for democracy. In some cases, cultures may borrow or adapt words from other languages to refer to the concept of democracy. The idea of democracy can also be expressed through different phrases or terms that convey similar principles.

He's a republican.

People may risk their lives for democracy because they believe in the principles of freedom, equality, and participation in decision-making processes. They may see democracy as a way to ensure their rights are protected, hold leaders accountable, and have a say in governing their own lives and communities. Additionally, some individuals are willing to sacrifice for democracy because they see it as a means to create a more just and inclusive society for future generations.

State-centric is an international relations approach that considers that the main participants in the international arena are states, and that the decision-making processes are done by the states (they are the active actors). Realism is a state-centric approach, as is liberalism.

James Madison defined pure democracy as a system in which decisions are made directly by all eligible citizens, without the mediation of elected representatives. He believed that pure democracies could lead to the tyranny of the majority and were prone to chaos, which is why he favored a republican form of government with checks and balances.

Heya, From studying history in secondary school, I think that the top characteristics are: # A one party dictatorship # Control over agriculture and industry # No private property At least that's what the book told me

This loose collection of states is known as a confederation. In a confederation, member states retain sovereignty and delegate limited powers to a central authority for common interests. An example of a confederation is the European Union before the Treaty of Lisbon.

After Googling the term and finding it on a few Republican websites, I've come to realize that the term is being mispelled, so it's understandable that you would be confused by the term. The term is actually "Gorbasm" and as you can see, it is an ellision of "Gorbachev" and "Orgasm." The term was coined by Rush Limbaugh, and referred to a euphoric feeling among liberals when Gorbachev landed in Washington to save the world from the war-mongering Reagan.As he puts it, in <a href="http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_072707/content/01125107.guest.html">his own words</a>: "A Gorbasm basically is that feeling of uncontrolled joy and excitement that explodes, or I should say exploded, when Mikhail Gorbachev landed in Washington in 1987 to save the world from Ronald Reagan's finger on the nuclear button." As you can see, the term refers to a specific event in the nation's past, and doesn't occur any more.

Representative democracy as known today originated in ancient Greece, particularly in Athens. The concept was further developed during the Enlightenment period in Europe, with key contributions by philosophers such as John Locke and Montesquieu. The modern form of representative democracy began to take shape with the establishment of constitutional governments in countries like England and the United States.

Democracy is important because it allows for citizen participation in decision-making, promotes accountability of elected representatives, and protects individual rights and freedoms. It also fosters political stability and peaceful transfer of power.

The voting age in Australia was reduced from 21 to 18 in 1973 through the Commonwealth Electoral Act. This change was brought about to align with international standards and give young adults a voice in the democratic process.

Montesquieu believed in the separation of powers, where the government is divided into three branches - legislative, executive, and judicial. Each branch should have separate powers and responsibilities to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful. This system would help ensure a balance of power and protect against tyranny.

A representative democracy is a form of government where people choose representatives to make decisions on their behalf. These representatives are elected through a democratic process and are expected to represent the interests and values of the people who elected them.

Mainly because their conception of democracy was distinct from our own. They saw democracy in a Greek, classical sense, where the people had direct power and tyranny abounded (Ancient Athens). The leaders were conscientious of the issue of a majority potentially ruling unjustly and with an iron fist.

Eastern Europe, particularly countries such as Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia, made significant strides towards democracy in 1989. This period, known as the Revolutions of 1989, saw the fall of communist regimes and the transition to democratic systems in these countries.