0
Yes. Generally speaking, as Expert Charlie N. notes, these ideals are not completely followed through on in democracies. However, these things remain the ideal. The reason that frequent elections (e.g. at least once every six years) are necessary is in order to hold public officials accountable to the people. Individuals who have their positions with lifetime tenures have no reason to maintain loyalty to the public. Legal equality is necessary in order for every person to be able to defend their interests to the same degree. A group of people that does not have the right to vote or to defend themselves politically has often been a political target by those groups who do have the rights to vote and politically advocate.
What else can I help you with?
Are frequent elections and legal equality essential to democracy?
absolutely yes !
Why did they have frequent elections for state legislature?
because they were dumb
Why did the states have frequent elections for the state legislatures?
because they were dumb
What are two negative aspects of democracy?
One negative aspect of democracy is the potential for majority tyranny, where the majority can use their voting power to oppress or marginalize minority groups. Another negative aspect is the possibility of instability, as frequent elections and policy changes can create uncertainty and hinder long-term planning and decision-making.
Is it True or false democracy is essentially government by the people with free and frequent election?
It is true.
What aspects of the new state constitutions allowed people to keep a constant watch over the government?
Frequent Elections
Which of the following is not a characteristic of fascist governments?
Social stratification frequent elections
Describe voter trunout in the us?
Voter turnout in the US is typically low; only a relatively small percentage of those eligible to vote do so. Most frequent voters are older and more conservative. Less-frequent voters are younger. National elections typically get better turnout than local or state elections.
Limiting the frequency of elections could have the following result?
Limiting the frequency of elections could lead to increased political stability, as longer terms may reduce the volatility associated with frequent electoral cycles. However, it might also result in decreased accountability, as elected officials would have more time to distance themselves from voter concerns without the pressure of impending elections. Additionally, voter engagement could diminish, as citizens may feel less involved in the political process when elections are less frequent. Overall, the balance between stability and accountability would be a critical consideration.
How does parliamentary democracy affect the economy?
Parliamentary democracy can positively impact the economy by promoting stability and accountability, which are essential for attracting investment and fostering business growth. In such systems, governments are often more responsive to public needs and can implement policies that encourage economic development and social welfare. However, frequent changes in leadership and policy direction can also create uncertainty, potentially hindering long-term economic planning. Ultimately, the effectiveness of a parliamentary democracy in enhancing economic performance depends on the political culture and the quality of governance.
How do you use the word direct democracy in a sentence?
Direct democracy is a form of democracy in which citizens participate directly in decision-making processes. For example, in a direct democracy, citizens might vote on specific laws or policies themselves, rather than electing representatives to make those decisions on their behalf. Switzerland is often cited as a country that practices direct democracy through frequent referendums on various issues.
What do you think are the advantages of holding frequent elections of representatives?
No I Cant Answer This Question BECAUSE IM HAVING PROBLEMS MYSELF . -.-
