just doesn't work the way it should

good except for morons. It should operate the way it's outlined in the U.S. Constitution.

Founders all agreed, anyone who's studied agrees - Democracies all fail because people learn to vote them selves money and power.

Yes, democracy is the last best option, but it has its obvious problems. The really big one that Rousseau grasped better than anyone else is, How the hell do you get there? And how can it be preserved if nobody believes its origins are legitimate? The process by which you get to democracy is almost always undemocratic. There usually has to be a war and revolution in which the will of majority, who just want to go about their ordinary lives, falls by the wayside. Just as often, some guy comes in from the outside and imposes the democratic institution on you, as America is trying in vain to do in Iraq, even though it should be blindingly obvious that no one is going to accept such an institution if it's not self-made. So we're left with a more or less weak makeshift form that few people really believe in, but, as Dr. Entropy rightly said, is at least a sight better than the alternatives.

Best system devised by men so far. Not without imperfections, but the benefits outweighs the downfalls.

People here who down grade Democracy seem to be the ones who prefer more government involvement in their daily life, don't we have enough? My good friend SziHonshu outlined with blistering honestly his loss of faith in our Democracy because most people don't give two shits about the maintenance of it. The founding fathers get five stars for what they created for us while we the people get a shameful two for F@%king it up.

The greatest (worst?) thing about the Democracy we have in the United States is that even idiots who base their opinons on hallucinatory visions and whatever they find in chain emails have a voice. Democracy isn't perfect, but if you are looking for perfection you'll have a long wait.

On paper, it sounds great but when Bush and his buddies schmooze their way to the white house to spend the treasury of generations, declaring war to a defenseless dictator with lots of fuel and call it "democracy", it makes me angry.

Democracy is not perfect, but it is the best we have. I have one day discussion with Canadian communists about the Former Soviet Union. Appered that with all their ideological background, they did not know that Stalin killed in the prisons and concentration camps more than 20 millions. How about killing the village people in Ukraine by taking all their food and letting them starving to death? This is the Communist perfect society!!! Note, that it is not Russian Evil. Everywhere, where communists come to power, there are death and economic stagnation (China, N. Korea, Albania, etc.).

OK, religious or military dictatorship is better? Multiple examples from Africa and South America. You are against the government? Killed - no person - no problem. Nice resolution.

We forgot about anarchy. Anybody on the board really think, that the Jungle Law can work in the country?

I had a chance to learn from inside different systems: communism, socialist capitalism, and pure capitalism. Trust me, the last one is the best.

Morons prattle about democracy, and when it happens, it frightens them. Hamas won a clear victory in the West Bank and Gaza, and so our beloved President is boycotting them and freezing their assets.

The crazies have won in Iran, and probably Iraq. The crazies will win in every Middle Eastern country that can hold free elections. Gee, they aren't politically correct!

The mental defects who pose as our leaders cannot detect a difference between Anglo-American liberal democracy and just plain democracy.

Remember in the Roman Colosseum, after a gladiator lost, the mob would give a thumbs up or thumbs down. The fighter's life depended on a democratic vote. Ah, true democracy.

Good in the short run, but a large number of philosophers state it is bad in the long run. They say that democracy inevitably leads to tyranny.

Example. 99 people are in the room. Fifty vote to take all the property of the remaining 49. That is pure democracy. A limitation on the power of the majority is anti-democratic, right? You know, oh, ye learned members of the RIA!

Churchill said "Democracy is the worst form of government, besides all the others."

Just like anything, democracy comes in all shapes and forms. There are bad and good democracies. Elected officials and public servants have to be honest.

For the world to have peace, there has to be some fair playing field of economic democracy. The information technology has provided a sort of such opportunity.

The comments pertaining to the drawbacks of democracy, such as uninformed voters and mob rule are correct. So I won't mention that again. But I'd like to add another problem with democracy. Once officials get elected, a lot of times they tend to not act with their conscious but what will satisfy voters in their constituency. Democracy then gets turned into a popularity contest. We've seen dangerous actions, such as the War on Terrorism
being okayed by congressmans - even by those who deep down knew it was wrong. A couple of years later, those same politicians are acting like fools and saying they were "misled" or "fooled". Politicians have a constant fear of losing the next election and will not choose unpopular actions, no matter how right it actually is.

  Tired of the swift-boaters and the lap-dog pile-on media? Tired of the racism, the sexism, the homophobia, the xenophobia, the embrace of ignorance and anti-intellectualism, the constant abuse of power by the powerful to atack and steal from those without power? Maybe Winston Churchill was right about democracy being two wolves and a lamb voting over to what to have for dinner. Sometimes it feels that way.

Do you need a reason to feel good about American-styled democracy again?

Check this out ~> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veO_bGXuR6U 

That always makes ME  feel better. I hope it does the same for you.

Worst possible system ....except for all the others.

probably the best system of goverment yet used. however because in a democracy people are ruled by who they choose, then in theory the goverment will do what the people want to try to stay in power, but what people want is not neccessarily what is best for them. besides can people really be trusted to elect there leader. hitler came to power in a democracy.

Its important cause' without democracy, we may not be here ya mean? This is what I stand for, this is what we stand for, democracy. Other countries need to get a democracy like us, that way they can all pop their collars like me. And thats why I appreciate democracy.

Democracy only serves its intrinsic value if all men are just regardless of stature,position and title.

Democracy, as opposed to the principles of the Republican form of government, is a hideous thing. It was opposed by Our Founding Fathers who viewed a democratic form of government as an eventual formula for national destruction. In a democracy, the mob or masses rule, in a Republican form of government, the People are equally represented and the power is distributed among the many. In a democracy, the majority tends to overwhelm the minority to the point that the majority opinion is imposed upon everyone. Democracies can never guarantee the Liberty of the People, nor can it protect the Freedoms of the Individual, it can only function as an ever increasing voice of the majority rule and will never allow full equality. Democracy breeds class divisions between peoples.

The system is to flawed, to slow when passing new laws. Easily becomes mob rule, and since mobs are generally ignorant could be dangerous. Despite these flaws and possibly others it is not as corruptible as other political systems. If voters took time to actually investigate who they were voting for and broke free of the mob mentallity, this could be a better system.

Democracy is founded upon the assumption that what the majority of the voting public want is automatically good for the country. This means that in a true democracy, if all right-handed people wanted the lefties killed it would be the right thing for its leadership to do, according to this deeply flawed philosophy. In fact we have just witnessed a people exercising their democratic right by electing in universal franchise and by a large majority a party of sociopathic mass murderers, who have pledged to follow Islamacist policies that will lead to military occupation and resulting economic collapse for their own people on a scale that they will only have themselves to blame for. In truth though, this is nothing new or theoretical. Democracies have been responsible for a huge amount of harm, from the election of Adolf Hitler's National Socialists to the trouncing of Winston Churchill at the elections immediately following the second world war in favour of a Labour administration that nationalised half of the country, causing huge national decline and recession until their dreadful policies were eventually reversed by first Conservative and then New Labour governments. Fortunately, we in Britain and most other countries don't live in true democracies but in what has been referred to as 'elective aristocracies', with elected elites making virtually all of the decisions for us, regardless of what we think. Anyone doubting this should consider that in the UK, where new Labour have an outright parliamenty majority of 66 seats but less than a quarter of the electorate actually voted for them. The true value of our democracies lie in their wonderful ability to preserve stability, ensuring that when the population become angry or discontented with their government they are able to punish the elite by voting the dominant party out of power. In most cases this does not harm the country as the resulting change in governance is usually very slight. Additionally, this serves as an incentive to the elite to try their best to govern succesfully and to come up with useful policies.

Pure democracy runs the risk of the rights of minorities being overridden.

In a structurally limited form its functional. Otherwise, its the tyranny of the majority over the minority.

im happy living in america. it could get better, and probably will

I'm sad to report that since my 40th birthday I have lost faith in it. Democracy depends upon an informed citizenry making considered choices. We don't have that. America is a society of consumers. Americans largely don't know or give a rat's behind about foreign policy, the national debt, Supreme Court decisions, etc. etc. They are, however, aware of the newest items at Baby Gap and Pottery Barn for Kids, not to mention enthralled with the participants on American Idol, Celebrity Fit Club ... basically, well over half the voters in this country have no business voting because they don't know sh--. They just absorb what is put in front of them on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and other media outlets. The result is that we get two parties that behave largely the same and only differ as to the lip service they pay to their hard core constituents. Winston Churchill said The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter. Phenomenal. He could have been talking about 2005.

I wish I lived in a real democracy!

Freedom is all-important. However, in between a democracy and a republic, a republic is better. The average person can be easily swayed from issue to issue, all they have to do is hear some sob story and they'll change their mind. Meanwhile, having people who spend their time educating themselves on issues take votes on them is much better. I'm not saying I like the idea of educated elites ruling us (not that that's what I think a republic is), I just think it's a bad idea having uneducated people voting on issues they don't know about.

hmmm I've given this 5 but thats on my definition of democracy not americas and Britains. Democracy is not complete unless the people of the country are asked on every law/act the government makes. and parties should not use advertising to influence voters as this means only the rich could possibly get elected.

People should have MORE input, like democracy is intended to respresent. If our current president had his way I believe he'd do away with everything associated to democracy.

American democracy works only because we have plentiful natural resources. In other words, there is a lot for us to share in with one another. In countries where the means to life are in short supply, democracy is harder to make work, which is why you dont see it in such countries. More of a dog eat dog mentality develops which tends to outweight concern about liberties, rights of others, and so forth. Also, some people just cant handle the democratic processes of citizenship, voting, etc.

as theoretical as Socialism. i have yet to see Democracy put to good use for the benefit of a national whole.

You can't always rely on the people to come to the right decision. Think about it, what the majority says is what the typical man thinks. Typical doesn't always cut it. Sometimes you need expertise.

The United States of America is not a democracy. In a democracy, it is assumed that all people are equally smart and intelligent, and have the same capacity to make decisions for the greater good. In Athens, the only true democracy ever, people were chosen by LOT to lead the nation. This means that Joe Schmo off the street who has done nothing but pass the constitution test in 8th grade has teh same chance of being the most powerful man on earth as someone who had been training for it their whole lives. Democracy would be great if all people were equal, but we aren't.

The Idea is great and has so much potential. And I have to agree that at this stage we have yet to find an all incompassing system which works better. Sadly there still remain those who manipulate and distort certain aspects to their own selfish advantage. And as already mentioned, Democracy (in so many words) would work a whole lot better if people would use it properly, were more educated and involved and not take it for granted. It is not perfect which is obvious to some....we can only continue to work on it and learn. Those who think it is absolutely perfect and dont see why there is any talk of growth so to speak, are not looking beyond thier back yard, or their country. A quote from Samthecoolbear: Probably one of the best governments out there. GOD BLESS THE USA AND BUSH!!! Democracy is not a political party Samthecoolbear, this just shows how uninformed yet blindly faithful some can be. And when it comes to true democracy George Bushes government is FAR from it....a good example of the terible missuse of such a potentielly good governing system. Theres definately worse forms of government, but we have a long ways to go in terms of getting it right.

Democracy, along with capitalism, has made all of our lives so much easier and happier than they would be otherwise. True, it is not perfect, but it is the best form of governemnt humanity has.

Representive 'democracy' is a thinly veiled oligarchy; referendum-based democracy (such as in Switzerland) is a true and pure democracy, and has been shown (with some modifications) to work better than any other system.

Thanks for sharing.

Democracy is a means to end; not an end in and of itself. It is a mechanism or tool which serves as a counterbalance against one individual or group gaining power over everyone else. I think Democracy is perhaps the best thing we've found but I don't know that it's the final word, and that we may find something better yet. One curious thing about democracy is that those who advocate it often have a different idea about the ends it serves. One person may support it because they are egalitarians into social justice and feel that the empowered populace can, through democracy, serve as a countervailing influence against a real or imagined elite. Another may support it because its overall effect is (generally) preserving individual rights. Anarchists and non-Stalinst communists believe that democracy protects against the exploitation of one class of people by another. From right to left and off of the political spectrum, many people with very different ideas about the world support democracy because it makes their dreams possible, even if it does not always actualize them. Democracy as an end, however, is empty. What good is rule by the people, if they pass bad laws? What if a slim majority of people outvotes the other and oppresses them through the legitimacy of a majority, or even a plurality? What of the old statement (I do not know who made it) that Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for lunch? I think Democracy (in its many forms from the Constitutional Republic of the United States to the parliamentary systems you find throughout Europe, to ancient Athens), clearly, has worked better than the countless other bankrupt systems we've seen. But it shouldn't blind us to better possibilites and certainly, there is still a lot of debate to be had. What happens when the individual good is in conflict with the common good? Most enlightened people believe that the individual is not property to be disposed of by tyrants and authoritarians, but are they or are they not the property to be disposed of by majorities? Is this even a black and white issue? Are there some circumstances where the right of the people trumps that of the individual or vice versa? I have my own opinion on this, and I bet you do too. Democracy to me is the more boring, uninspiring element of political systems rooted in freedom, but no less important. We must govern ourselves somehow if we wish to be free, and we must have a mechanism or framework to do it. But that is all democracy is, a mechanism or framework leading to an end. The more interesting, passionate, and perhaps divisive debate on where Democracy should lead us, continues.

Realistically, true democracy is very hard to achieve (especially in todays society). But we must all remember, it is the very structure of leadership that all humans beings should strive for equality of importance and opinion of all people.

Probably one of the best governments out there. GOD BLESS THE USA AND BUSH!!!

Well, it's a democracy-republic if you want to get technical about it. In any case, I enjoy our country's governing system and wouldn't have it any other way.

While I'm not happy about the result of Tuesday's election, I'm thrilled about the process. Our Democracy works. I was scared to death that this particular election - with the strength of emotion involved, and the seemingly even split between supporters of the two major candidates, was going to damage our system of democracy. That with the stakes so high, attempted cheating would be rampant, and the legitimacy of our system of electing officials was going to be compromised. Well it wasn't. The system worked, and the people have spoken. Instead of feeling like the only way to institute change is via coup as in many other supposed Democracies around the world, supporters of Kerry (or should I say, those of us less than impressed with the President) are left questioning the messenger, the message, the campaign, etc. - but NOT questioning the system, or the legitimacy of an election that gave Bush four more years. THAT is a big deal, and that is something we can all be proud of.

It would be better if it weren't so corrupted, the candidates weren't always so bad, and people actually voted.

All of you democracy haters can kiss my F#$%en @ss. I mean this is the greatest way of government. You haters should take this way of government as proudness.

At the core of the discussion on democracy is a fundamental question of how freedom is created and protected. Though I feel similar distain as Emilia for the fabrication of individual rights I part ways with her assertion that it defines democracy. Quite the contrary. Anarchic individualism as espoused by contemporary liberals exhibits the evolutionary tendencies toward tyranny as the conflict between competing rights fragments groups of minorities and imposes by for force their vision of morality on the majority. This is absolutely the antithesis of democracy! The concept of democracy in America was that morally bound individuals would gather to create laws for the great common good of man. (yes they excluded many who should have been included and have through free discourse been over time) Obviously the founders understood that not all men where morally bound and could succumb to the temptations of earthly desires. (Nor did they think they were perfect and devised a form of government that could change over time.) Factions therefore from one or a group pursuing his/their own ends at the expense of the general public were minimalized by the effects of the majority of morally bound individuals of common tradition seeking a moral ends. To check the effects of mob rule a drawback of pure democracy balances were erected on the federal level particularly with the division of powers; and it was argued that the enumerated powers limited the totality of power of the government itself to check tyranny. A devolved republic would also then disperse the ability of factions and the American Republic could properly balance the negative effects of isolated power. To further protect against mob rule many states had erected Bill of Rights statutes that protected natural rights. These were sacrosanct rights that the governement and majority would have to show overwhelming reason to over ride. They were few and limited. These were then incorporated into the consitution as a concession though the federal government had no authority to infringe on those rights as it was. The defense of individual rights was incorporated into the constitution as an additional step in balancing individual rights against mob rule. Founders, particularly southern plantation owners had a vested interest in protection against what they perceived to be mob rule. What if morally bound individuals passed laws that outlawed slavery on moral grounds for the common good? The achilies heel of the philosophy was the position that judiciary would be impartial and posed no threat to freedom. In Federalist #81 Hamilton theorizes the judiciary posed no threat as it could pass no laws nor wielded no sword. He couldn't have been more wrong. Envision a baseball game when the home plate umpire feels team a is morally superior than team b and refuses to call balls and strikes properly- fabricating stikes against one and for another. The outcome obviously would not be free. This perversion as a check on mob rule is none of the sort and actually nothing short of tyranny- the one thing the founders wished to prevent. Democracy is and will be our only defense against tyranny. Democracy allows the public to make mistakes and then change direction. We all want to live in a better place tomorrow and leave a brighter future for our childen. We should have that discussion amongst ourselves- free people determining our own bright destiny. Democracy, the essence of freedom, is presently being subverted by those who believe they know better than We The People. ******Reading all the comments after my original makes me thankful that the Founders understood why a pure democracy would be untenable. It also makes me thankful that they created the greatest nation in history; one that allows people to make ridiculous statements like America is a right wing oligarchy, bodering on fascism. Such hyperbole is a right here in America. In a fascist state one would be shot for such stupidity. Lucky we are simply bodering or we might be in trouble.

A true democracy would be fine. America is a right wing oligarchy, bodering on fascism.

Nice in theory. Really, I DO like it. But no country is really pulling it right, except maybe Switzerland.

There's just one wee little drawback with democracy as a concept... people are just downright stupid. But I suppose it's better than the alternatives..

I think we have a gross misunderstanding of democracy nowadays. The United States is not a democracy. Period. By definition. The people do not make the policies, they do not enforce legislation, nothing. Representatives and leaders do everything for them (theoretically - actually they're all doing it for themselves). But anyway, I don't support a real democracy simply because, unless we make an astounding leap in progress, the average person simply is not qualified to make big decisions like that. On a local level, sure, but nationally? Even now, the few leaders that do run this country can't keep track of it all and require countless aids and advisors to keep everything flowing smoothly. In a true democracy on a national level, we would have absolute chaos.

Though it is exceptional individuals and not 'the people' that move history, I scoff at the notion of 'individual rights'. Democracy, of course, pays far too much attention to individual rights. Look at the lowest and most despicable piece of human scum on the earth and tell me that they deserve the right to do whatever they please without infringing upon the rights of others; only then will you be a true adherent of democracy.