Apparently the Massacre At Tiananmen Square never happend says WikiLeaks

Which what?

You can bring up Gallup polls all you want, it doesn't change the material reality that the United States is a textbook example of democracy.

Of the three democratic systems to which you mentioned.

Direct democracy is the ideal, but it's ridiculously impractical. Representative is what we should aim for in reality.

I'm saying it's not a democracy in practice. Of course there are elections, representatives etc. But that doesn't mean anything if it doesn't reflect the will of the public.

When only 10% agree with their representatives, when polls show that people feel that it isn't in their interest but special interests, you need to be discussing the quality of your democracy! It's simple!

Who says you can't have an element of both? Another strawman.

Direct I have a problem with as it requires all citizen to vote on all issues of the government, to this who is demanding that the people do this? the state itself, nothing says democratic then forcing people to vote on an issue. Also the problem of everyone voting and voting for something horrible comes into play.

But what is the say the people's interest are? humanity and the persons own interest very from person to person, and in are democracy the person if one seeks can make a difference we just choose not to and instead complain about how bad it is. I'm also going with you voted for Strongly agree in the should we focus more on Humanity or Trans-national corporation rights.

Of course people disagree with Congress. If you are a Democrat you disagree with the House, if you are a Republican then you disagree with the Senate. People don't just say, "Well at least everyone was represented." When a bill is passed.

That means you have a problem with your electoral system, if that's true.

If only 10% agree with the laws your country is/isn't making, there's a problem.

Kali presented a strawman, there is an inbetween. Like using direct democracy to overrule unpopular acts passed by parliaments via petitions and then referendums. Direct democracy isn't set in stone.

Yes, actually it does. The will of the people is wholly irrelevant. Look at the definition of democracy, then look at the structure of the US government. You will find, without fail, that the US government is a democracy. Popularity and consensus have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the meaning of the word democracy. Policymaking is done by both elected officials and citizens, which makes the US a democracy (and a representative one at that).

Representative democracy is taking elements of both republican and direct democracy. That's what it means.

There are some holes in your line of thought. Britain is not democratic for instance. It would also mean that back 2001 when congress had an approval rating of about 80% America was a democracy and become a dictatorship overnight without any major changes to the system.

Ugh. I was using democracy in the sense of being representative of the will of the population. I'm not saying it isn't a representative democracy, what I'm saying is that it doesn't reflect its will. An important element of representative democracy is electing a representative who reflects your opinions and in turn reflects your will. That element is not functional.

How about this then. More direct democracy, less republican democracy. Get it?

I'm still in a complete state of shock as to why or how anyone would argue that America is not a democracy. Also to above, we don't have a collective will of the people so direct democracy does not work and would require it to be forced.

I'd agree. Our electoral system is terrible and is undemocratic. It kills new parties from succeeding and is whittling down to a US-like two party system (although in practice it has mostly been as such).

(Democratic as in the will of the people, Kali)

There goes your rampant naivete and idealism, blacking out reality again. Stop viewing the world through rose-colored lenses, or at least stick to non-hippie terminology. Democracy has a concrete meaning, and insinuating that the US isn't one is patently ludicrous.

That's not important at all. The criteria that define democracy, that define representative democracy in particular, are met wholly and completely by the United States government. That is a simple and unalterable fact. You can say that the democratic system has flaws, or that our particular system has flaws, but you cannot say that we aren't a democracy.

The issue isn't something you can or should try to boilerplate an answer on. There are definitely areas that are more suited to republican government than direct rule.

I always love it when people throw around such lose terms such as will of the people, its like they have a consumption in there head that they are the will of the people, also just say you are arguing against the two party system and would much rather see a multi-party system.

But America is a democracy, as to which I am still waiting for an argument to why it isn't other then people don't agree with current policy making and if it isn't a democracy then what is it?

Not keen on the ad-hominems. I think a democracy reflecting the will of the people is more important than it following a set procedure and ticking all the boxes. At the end of the day, a state is a created structure. If it doesn't represent the public it should be dissolved. Power structures aren't immortal.

Last time, it can tick the boxes of a representative democracy. But in terms of reflecting the will of the people, which is considered paramount to democracy, the US, and many other countries too, fail. It's more important that a state has the support of the people, otherwise it is illegitimate.

All this proves is how inaccurate WikiLeaks is.

^Still I demand full credit for everything that has come up in this thread, seeing as how it was mine first. fuck I really need to like copy right threads or something to that extend, but anyways according to the good old MRN and Ler the people where arguing against the recent capitalist reforms in China.

Too much democracy becomes a Bureaucratic mess, I agree that direct democracy will just burden the state, Although Representative democracy is barely a democracy when the people don't agree with there Reps. it just basicly means, were (USA) a democracy every time we vote, and the in between times the Politicians who claim to represent us do nothing but accept wads of cash to go against us.