Political Theory

The imperialism of the United States in the late 1800s and early 1900s goes back to the idea of Manifest Destiny. It was the "destiny" of our nation to expand from border to border and sea to sea. Once the North American continent was "acquired" (physically, politically, and economically) it was only a "natural" step to seek influence abroad. The economic factors that supported imperialism included the need to obtain more natural resources for industrial development and the need for more markets to expand the industrial profit of the nation. Politically we considered ourselves a model for other nations and areas to admire. Politicians claimed that imperial ventures were simply a way for the US to take part in world affairs and not become too isolated. Trade between nations made the US an active imperialistic nation as well. The desire to spread our political and social ideals as well as missionary zeal also contributed to our imperialistic designs. The following sites should have more information for you. http://www.teacheroz.com/20thcent.htm http://hometown.aol.com/we4amhis/SubjectIndex.html MrV

Direct Democracy is a political system where the citizens participate in the decision making rather than relying on intermediaries or representatives. In other words, a government ruled by the people instead of being run by a government elect or other means.

Absolute monarchy and Constitutional monarchy

Typically more, but that depends on how you are using/meaning the word "efficient", very vague.

yes i believe so ........ i think this because the people have their own rights and are able to vote and if new Zealand wasn't a democratic country then is would be a Communist country and then they wouldn't have any rights or the right to vote .....but i am only 90% sure so i would see what others have to say before you jump to conclusions ..... hope this helped!!! :P

The answer is a few representatives are elected to vote for the majority.

in a democracy

Montesquieu thought that a limited monarchy was the best type of government, with a monarch and its underlings, with whom the power was shared with. Basically, a monarch with limited power and some other peopple with a little power

It is not respected, as rulers violate laws as they please

A monarchy is a ruler such as a queen, king, princess, or prince that rules over a land or territory. they are like the president sort of A monarchy is a ruler such as a queen, king, princess, or prince that rules over a land or territory. they are like the president sort of

It can be argued that pressure groups are undemocratic, and bad for democracy, in many ways. One reason why they can be viewed as being bad for democracy is because they are generally undemocratic in organisation. This means that they have no real authority with which to fight their cause, since they are unelected. The membership of pressure groups is also generally from the middle classes and so is not representative of the population. Another reason for why pressure groups could be bad for democracy is that there is unequal distribution of resources between groups, and unequal influence between different groups. This means that groups with more money will be more likely to be successful, because they are better able to promote their cause. Some powerful insider pressure groups could remove power from democratically elected governments as they attempt to pursue their own personal cause. Pressure groups also sometimes have unrealistic aims and this can lead the electorate to feel that the government are not handling situations correctly. Certain outsider pressure groups may choose to opperate illegally and so can undermine and attack the government, and so attack the political and democratic authority which the government posseses.

Ghandi form india

Shaing Kia-Shek from China

Aung San Suu Kyin from Burma

Yes,it will. The world political map will show you how each region of the United States represents a particular political agenda. Each state is indicated as either red or blue.

To prevent one person from gaining too much power, ancient Athens frequently cycled its offices and provided checks - restrictions on the power of one position by others.

A federal government consists of a number of different semi-autonomous regions who, although they still maintain a bit of control over their own affairs, come together under a centralized power to be governed. Federal governments can derive their power from a number of sources, taking the form of everything from Democracies to Oligarchies.

John Locke proposed the idea that all men should be able to own land that everyone once born should have a "clean slate." The Americans adopted much of his ideas and put them into the declaration of independence and the constitution.

The Republicans and the Democrats are the two major political parties in the United States.

If you are properly using the word committee, the answer is 50% plus one, or a simple majority. A committee does not make law. It discusses proposed laws called bills, works out the details, and with a majority vote moves the bill onto the "floor" for a vote of the whole chamber.

If by committee you mean the actual full House of Representatives and the Senate, technically all you need there is a simple majority also. But there are complicating factors such as the filibuster in the Senate and various other rules that sometimes make this simple majority not enough for passage.

In theory, yes. In the idealistic communist community, everyone in the community works their hardest and everybody gets just enough supplies to support themselves and their family. In the real world, however, this system would not work for many reasons. Firstly, the leader would take advantage of their position of power. Secondly, the civilians would take advantage of their positions. Therefore, the only way that communism would work in the real world is if the citizens were completely unselfish and there was no wrongdoing.

The Whigs could no longer agree on a position for the slavery issue. Whigs began joining the Republican Party if they were against the preservation of slavery and the Democrats if they were for keeping it as a state option. By 1856 there were not enough Whigs left to have any chance of electing a president, although they did run a coalition candidate , Fillmore, who got 22% of the votes.

Challenges to American Democracy

1. Economy

2. Education

3. Political systems.

4. Military

5. Health Care

6. Dealing with internal challenges that threaten

reform. All societies face internal challenges

that threaten the standard of living for its citizens.

Crime, violence, ethnic unrest and conflict, civil

rights, unemployment, inflation, pollution, and

health care are all examples of issues with which

modern societies must deal. These issues can be

even more difficult when a society is in the reform

stage and caught between the old ways of communism

and the new ways of the Post-Communist era.

A society should allow its leaders to accept campaigne contributions, then they should allow all forms of media to charge alot of mony to run adds. This way the candidate that gets the most contributions wins.

This is a good thing because whoever wins has the most contributions, whoever has the most contributions must have the most supporters. Well maybe not the "most" supporters, but the most "reletively effective" supporters. Majority rules?

So basicaly, a society should let the lions of comerce choose it leaders.

Or better yet. The populace could choose a president from a small pool of "leaders", hand selected by the lions of comerce, and as such, the people will feal quite satisfied. They will believe that there country is being shaped by their vote. This works great because the lions maintain control, and an essentially worthless vote leaves the people fealing empowered.

I wonder why more people don't vote? Maybe people don't care who leads this country. I think you can do whatever you want to a population as long as you can keep them well fed and occupied.

Fat Americans watching American idol... what could be easier?

Athenian democracy was relatively not limited since it was a very direct form of democracy. People who took office (e.g.) leaders and judges) were constrained by their limited time in power, however.