That’s the great thing about democracy; the people are allowed to choose any leader they feel is best through election. So if the constituency chooses who leads them, shouldn't they be allowed to decide how long he or she stays in office? Denying the people the right to determine how long a president stays in office is fundamentally contradicting the purpose of democracy. Presidential term limits are inadmissibly undemocratic. The purpose of democracy is to leave the power within in the hands of the people through representative government.
Even though some might criticize that these politicians might not make radical choices in order to prevent upsetting their supporters, that’s what democracy is about: for the people and by the people. Even though they might not always make the right choice, they tend to follow the views of the majority.
There may be elections and parties but they are mostly limited by one and the range of candidates is very low. Examples for authoritarian regimes are North Korea, Iran, Burma, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe. But in the UK we use the representative democracy which is also known as Indirect democracy because people elect representatives who make the decisions for us what means the citizen rule indirect. The Government is given authority to direct people and to achieve their goals. Authority is power in a positive way because the Government has the right to tell others what to do but they can’t force anyone.
In America, we do allow each person the right to vote unless they have done something which would cause them to lose that right (as in felony crimes). Once the person is elected d they can fulfill their duties that can benefit us. The citizens of the United States do not elect their president directly. When Americans cast their vote for a presidential candidate, they are really voting for an elector--a
Majoritarian democracy is a democracy based upon majority rule of a society's citizens. Countries such as the UK, USA and Canada operate on the basis of representative democracy where the people vote for representatives who then decide policy initiatives. Other countries such as Uruguay, Switzerland and Latin America operate on the basis of direct democracy where people decide upon policy initiatives directly. Source A suggests that the people (voters) are sovereign and what that they have the final say whereas Source B suggests the opposite in that the people feel “politicians are failing and disconnected from the British people”. Democracy means “power to the people” and Source A suggests that this is what is happening and the people are happy with the voting system.
The election could have turnout out different if everyone actually took the time to learn about the issues going on and made a educated vote, but who knows, it could have turned out the same. There are many reasons behind this trend of low voter turnout. Many Americans who choose not to vote believe that who ever is voted for president or for congressman will not care about them as an individual or community. They often feel like the government does not care for them and it has let them down. So these people who believe this don’t care to vote because they basically feel like how ever the election turns out it would not affect them in any way another reason why people choose not to vote is because they feel like their vote will not mean anything and it wont affect the turn out at all due to the fact that there are millions of other people voting.
Many men and women have died for our right to vote and other rights that we are given. People, more now than ever, should use their right to vote every chance they get because the world is changing very fast and you should want to have a say in where it's going. We all have a responsibility to make the world a better place, voting gives us the right away to do so on various subjects. Opinions are one of the many things that makes us different from others. Mistakes are one of the things that makes us human beings, but mistakes can always be prevented.
‘Liberal democracy’ embodies a whole range of doctrines and devices that actually seek to restrain popular rule and prevent government from flexing direct will of majority. The liberal’ features are reflected in a network of internal and external checks on government. For example, guarantee of civil liberty and healthy civil society. The ‘democratic’ features are that it is a system of regular elections, universal suffrage and political equality. In contrast James Madison saw democracy as a defence against majoritarianism, with checks and balances on government, which would make government responsive to competing minorities and safeguards the propertied-few from the property-less masses.
Some use this privilege to their own advantage, informing themselves and doing their part in impacting these decisions that ultimately shape the future of our beloved country. While some, on the other hand, choose not to do so. But that is completely their decision and their right as a citizen. The fifteenth Constitutional Amendment grants every citizen this right to choose by stating, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” While some may say it would be more efficient and “correct” to enforce compulsory voting, I believe that abolishing this freedom to choose in order to enforce a law requiring people to vote would violate the rights we have been given as a democratic nation. And while it may increase the number of voter turnouts, it could also possibly take away the significance of an individual’s vote all together.
This coverage was thought to have had a powerful influence on public opinion and therefore on political decision making”. This evidence also explains how the media influenced many Americans by making them realize that the war was bad and it had to end. The last two evidences fit together with each other because they both show how the media has changed the way people saw the war and it also shows the importance of the media during the Vietnam War. “