Political Decision Making Has Been Regarded As The Foundation Stone Of The Democratic

One final argument for direct democracy in the UK is that it increases the people’s political participation and engagement in current issues. When people are given the opportunity to have their say, they are more likely to get involved in the process, thus increasing the accuracy of the judgement. A successful and fully functional democracy relies on the involvement of the general public and the people it will be directly

Though a democratic government is great in theory, without educated and capable voters it’s potentially inefficient and incompetent. However, Athenian democracy thrives due to an informed public. Accordingly, so does the society it governs. “Our public men have, besides politics, their private affairs to attend to, and our ordinary citizens, though occupied with the pursuits of industry, are still fair judges of public matters; for, unlike any other nation, regarding him who takes no part in these duties not as unambitious but as useless, we Athenians are able to judge at all events if we cannot

The authors’ hypothesis in Democratic Practice and Democratic Theory states that requirements for voters exist to be followed but are difficult to follow, so only little of the electorate meet the requirements. The authors state that every voter should seek to have the requirements of great voters, including having great interest in politics, participating in discussions, and knowing much about politics. The authors declare that politicians have to accept the behavior of the voters. Also, even though the requirements are not met, the authors add that a positive side as the distribution of participation helps create

Another common criticism of the UK system is that, although most politicians are elected, many powerful people hold their positions without having to face the voters. Over the years criticism has focused on the House of Lords, the civil service and judges. While the people serving these positions may indeed be experts in their field, the citizens of the UK have absolutely no say in who is elected into these positions. This shows a problem in the United Kingdom’s democratic system and one that does not follow a representative democracy.

In our system of government we are privileged with the option to take part in the political process that runs the country. It is our right to vote that lets the people influence change in policy and set the guidelines that politicians must follow to be elected representatives. This precious ability, which is most coveted in most non-democratic countries, is taken for granted in our own.

Public opinion plays a huge role in the development of democracy. “A society is unlikely to maintain democratic institutions over the long term, unless democracy has solid support among the public” (Andersen 2012). Most research on the issue demonstrates a positive link between economic development and support for democracy(Andersen 2012). Some researchers also consider social trust (Putnam 1993) and social tolerance (Andersen and Fetner 2008) to be a major factor of support of democracy. Most Americans see unequal economy as a result of individuals work ethics and talent rather then a flaw in the economic system. However, most Americans accept inequality because they believe everyone has the same chances in life to make the best. A properly running government is supposed to make positive that all the citizen are equal. By believing in equal democratic rights Americans support everyone citizen having the same level of equality and the same equal voice in representative government. Since citizens don’t feel that they can trust the government to create and equal ground for all they are much less likely to be involve and participate in political field. Concerned citizens have the right to be worried about the health of our democracy. It seems that the government resounds more often and effectively to the more privileged group in society then to needs of the

This Federalist arguments on the limitations of mass participation also has its merits in a modern context, where voters are often indifferent, uninformed, and easily manipulated in an increasingly technological world. What Fishkin defines as “rational ignorance,” in which citizens are not motivated to go out of their way to learn and form rational opinions on policies, supports Madison’s fears. One aspect of rational ignorance illustrates the tendency of voters to vote only on policy issues relevant to them. For instance, farmers under a mass participatory system may vote only on issues related to agriculture, while remaining ignorant on other issues

They suggested that political participation held more than instrumental value and offered a platform for the earning of the virtues and responsibilities that underpin democracy

The American public as a whole, however, is wise and acquires political knowledge from more informed sources. James Surowiecki asserts in The Wisdom of Crowds that individuals can be impolitic; however, groups can reach wise decisions. Surowiecki claims, “Even if most people within a group are not especially well-informed or rational, it can still reach a collectively wise decision.” Surowiecki’s argument illustrates that a national referendum would thwart the ill-informed nature of the American voter as a national referendum is a collective decision. American voters can be irrational and ill-informed; nevertheless, most American voters acquire their political knowledge from more educated sources. The acquisition of political knowledge from more well-informed sources undermines the irrational nature of the American voter. Martin Gilens argues in “Two- Thirds Full? Citizen Competence and Democratic Governance” that cue taking enables ill-informed citizens to make a decision on a controversial issue. Gilens contends, “Taking cues from more knowledge elites or acquaintances is a sensible strategy for citizens who lack the ability or inclination to gather the information needed to formulate a preference on a given policy issue.” The collective wisdom of the American public and cue taking enable American voters to overcome their ignorance of politics and past political

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.

This paper will evaluate the health of U.S. democracy by focusing on the on a key element that makes for a healthy democracy: effective representation. By effective representation I refer to communication between both representatives and constituents, through policy enactments and elections, respectively, to serve the people and the interest of the country as a whole. Whether the U.S. is living up to this standard can be evaluated through multiple avenues, in this paper I will only evaluate the health of democratic representation in the U.S. by examining the competence of the public (voters). Numerous scholars and researchers have cast doubt upon how well democracy in the U.S. functions in the United States. Before examining the deficiencies of the public, it must be noted that while no governmental system is perfect by any means, anarchism as an alternative to government is not a practical solution (Dahl, Chapter 3, pp. 50-51).

As Habermas puts it “the relationship of the individual to the state has increasingly become one of client or consumer services, rather than citizen” (Roberts & Crossley, 5). Due to the limited agency (citizens’ roles) within this sphere, we can conclude that the ongoing competition and negotiation for a role in the public sphere ends with strictly dominant views. In such a monarchy, ordinary citizens such as lower classes and women have limited input when debating politics among other things. The ideal of a place where all opinions are counted, so to speak, fails to provide a sense of individual identity. This is due to the fact that it is pre-destined by the state itself and then turned back to the people- telling them what they will think about particular issues; shown especially through the controlling lens of the media.

3). The Athenian democratic system demanded that the population vote on all relevant issues within the city. A modern example of this is Switzerland. Swiss citizens vote regularly on any kind of issue on every political level. From 1995 to 2005, the Swiss voted just over 30 times on about 103 federal issues such as financial approvals. The UK is also a prime example in a modern society. This is the case as; the British government has the First Past the Post system which is used to elect a UK parliament. The Electoral Reform Society along with many members of the population believe that FPTP allows the voter to clearly express who they think should form the next government. Also the Scottish government is a system of proportional representation which was designed in order that no one party would have control. However, this needs to be redesigned as there is clearly, some issues within. By examining direct democracy, it is evident that it is a structure of the past and simply not possible in today’s society. When you compare this with representative and deliberative democracies, it is clear that these are much more

In the case that politicians do not live up to the ideals and criteria they were chosen for, a merit of democracy is that it allows the citizenry to punish these officials – not necessarily through extreme forms like impeachment, but perhaps by simply electing someone else in the forthcoming election. While, as previously addressed, not all participants in the election process vote based on truthful information, some citizens do. It must be remembered that not only those in authority

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