Giving People A Vote Does Not Mean That A State Would Have A Government?

We know that democracies are common among the economically urbanized countries and rare between the very deprived ones. The reason we scrutinize this pattern is not that democracies are more probable to emerge, as a result, of economic development but that they are to a large extent more possible to survive if they occur to emerge in most urbanized countries. The paths to democracy are diverse. Indeed, they appear to follow no unsurprising pattern. But once democracy is conventional, for whatever reasons, its endurance depends on a few, easily particular, factors.

Democracy in the United Kingdom has changed a lot over the years however the definition has never changed. The right for people to choose and decide how a country is run. This essay will help decide whether the United Kingdom still follows that definition of being a true democracy and analysing how this has affected the people of the UK.

Despite the many crises that the United States has faced historically, democracy has persisted. However, this is not to say that the system is secure or deeply rooted. In fact, based on the events of recent decades, it has been weakening. In How Democracies Die, Levitsky and Ziblatt provide examples of how American democracy has exemplified the positive and negative aspects of other global democracies of the past and present. Although the US is exceptional in some ways, with its longstanding democratic institutions and diverse population, it is more similar to others than different. Thus, the idea that few parallels can be drawn to other nations is disproven. The process of comparing each state is analogous to that of differentiating between

With every Presidential election, the United States’ electoral college takes place. The electoral college has been around for about 200 years and it is still going strong with its intended purpose. According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Democracy is defined as a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. This definition is accurate in the way that supreme power is held by the people but also that there are two forms, direct and indirect. Direct democracy is a system of government in which members of the polity, or political organization, meet to discuss all policy decisions and then agree to abide. This is also is called true democracy. In the form everyone is equal and their votes would count. So by voting, they will be able to voice their opinion and majority rule is the majority of the people, all 320 millions people in the United States of America.

Ever since the advent of democratic systems of political decision-making in Ancient Greece, one of the primary concerns about democratic functioning has been the principle of majority rule. Whether a majoritarian system is divisive in its essence, paves the way for demagoguery, or obstructs minority groups from having a fair say in public affairs, criticisms of majority rule have and still persist nowadays. Indeed, notorious political figures such as Hamilton, Madison or Mill expressed concerns about the potential threat of a tyranny of the majority which would infringe on citizens’ fundamental rights. Moreover and recently, the outcome of the Brexit referendum has renewed the debate around majority rule and its flaws. However, within the context of the contemporary world in which democracy prevails, majority rule is the norm many states follow. Why is this so; how can majority rule be defended and what are its limits? In order to provide an articulate and coherent answer, it is first necessary to lay down some premises to the functioning of the democratic process. Then, after arguing for majority rule, its flaws shall be assessed before eventually drawing potential alternatives from such dysfunctions.

The United States (U.S) is recognized worldwide as a powerful advocate for democracy. Using Robert Dahls criteria within On Democracy I will assess whether the U.S has equal voting and enlightened understanding. I will examine the degree of enlightened understanding by analyzing the public education, freedom of the press, and freedom of information to the people. Also, equality in voting will be considered by inspecting the extent of free and fair elections through the limitations placed on individuals to participate through new policies and registration laws. The United State although a democratic nation, to some extent does not meet Dahl’s criteria of enlightened understanding and equality in voting.

In a democracy, the people are supposed to rule via representatives. Using a system by, of, and for the people, everyone is equal and rights are guaranteed. Democracy is vital to uphold basic human rights such as freedom of expression or liberty. For this reason, democracy is the cornerstone of nearly all developed nations today, including the United States. Yet in many places, that cornerstone is weak. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a democracy as “a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives” (Definition). To be an effective democracy, all the members of a state must be properly represented, and elections should favor public opinion. Yet this is not always the case - in fact, the democracies that represent the most people, such as in the UK, the US, and India are quite weak.

The United States of America is one of the oldest contemporary democracies, is currently the second largest democracy, and is ranked the 16th best democracy in the world (Campbell et. Al, 2014). Yet there is a legitimate question over whether or not the United States can still truly be considered a democracy, with some studies even suggesting it has begun to resemble an oligarchy (Chumley, 2014). In this essay, I will use Dahl’s criteria of voting equality and effective participation to determine whether or not the United States are truly a democracy.

Democracy: a government by the people, in which citizens rule either directly or through elected representatives - the latter description more relevant to today’s societies. Quite evidently, democracy is not perfect; like any other political system, it is subject to a plethora of flaws. For instance, it is no secret that voters tend to make illogical decisions – not out of sheer malice, but as a result of being wrongly informed. Politicians also make erroneous choices, whether they do so because they are dishonest or simply out of touch with the true will of their constituents. Further, anyone who has studied the government of a parliamentary democracy knows gerrymandering can have a powerful say in determining elections. Despite these and

Democracy is a unique type of government, and the purpose of this essay is to illustrate the strengths and weaknesses that a democratic government provides. I will detail that many components of this type of society are both strengths and weakness as each component has beneficial aspects as well as unavoidable pitfalls.

Compulsory voting’s effects can be argued to increase or decrease democracy. Compulsory, or mandatory voting is in effect in about 30 democracies around the world. However of these 30 that have compulsory voting in their laws, the policies vary from country to country. For an example, some countries only instate compulsory voting for certain elected positions. France, for example, strictly uses compulsory voting for their Senatorial elections (Hamid, 2010). As the number of active voters decreases there are limited options as to how to increase voter turnout, compulsory voting could be one of the few actions that may work without decreasing democracy.

It has also been suggested that a basic feature of democracy is the capacity of eligible voters to participate freely and fully in the life of their society.[14] With its emphasis on notions of social contract and the collective will of the eligible voters, democracy can also be characterized as a form of political collectivism because it is defined as a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives.[15]

one essential conviction, expressed in the word democracy itself: that power should be in the hands of the people. Although democracy today has been slightly inefficient in this idea, with the wealthy, elite class challenging this right, “it nevertheless claims for itself a fundamental validity that no other kind of society shares….” To completely understand the structure of democracy, one must return to the roots of the practice itself, and examine the origins in ancient Greece, the expansion in the Roman Empire, and how these practices combined make what we recognize as today’s democratic government.

The Greeks, Athenians in particular, influenced Dalhs’ work. The author asserts that most states claim to know what the practice of democracy is. However, the author insists that the term democracy has brought about confusion across the different cultures. Dahl gives the view of what democracy entails. Dahl in simple terms says that a democracy means the rule by people. Dahl clearly says more about the literal definition of the term democracy by giving specification of the requirements for democratic decision-making (Pp.108-114). According to Dahl, a democratic process must ensure that there is effective participation in the voting process among all citizens and specifically adults who are bound to the collective decision making of the society. Democratic state should provide all citizens with the opportunity to understand the civic issues of the country and let them have control over issues

Churchill’s claim that “democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried” is deliberately provocative and intended to challenge the reader’s simplistic ideal that democracy is without faults. There are an estimated 114 democracies in the world today (Wong, Oct 3rd lecture). A figure that has increased rapidly in the last century not necessarily because democracy is the best form of government, but primarily for reason that in practice, under stable social, economic and political conditions, it has the least limitations in comparison to other forms of government. Be it the transparency of a democratic government or the prevalence of majority rule, all subdivisions of democracy benefit and hinder its