| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY": |
|
|
Representative Democracy, 2004.
Provides an historical look at representative democracies.
1,174 words (approx. 4.7 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 40.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay takes a look at some of the successful attempts and failed attempts at representative democracy. Russia and Germany are cited as failures in representative democracies, while the U.S. is cited as a representative democracy that has experienced limited success.
From the Paper
"In the news we are told that Iran is preparing for what they call free elections for their representative government. However, a group of governmental overseers, religious leaders, have to approve all candidates. This year, a large number of candidates, many of whom are currently elected by their constituents, will not be allowed to run for office because their views fall too far outside what the ruling powers find acceptable. No one living in a country that truly allows free speech would consider this governmental form a democracy, because to truly participate in government, the people represented by the government must be able to speak about what they think needs to be changed as well as what they like. The greatest strength a representative democratic government can have is the free speech for its constituents."
| |
|
Representative Democracy in the U.S., 2002.
This paper evaluates the representativeness of the American political process, as set forth by the Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence during the current international situation.
1,675 words (approx. 6.7 pages), 5 sources, APA, $ 54.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains representative democracy, in which voters elect their representatives to act in their interest, is distinguished from direct democracy, in which the people are directly involved in decision making of the government. The paper cites examples from the structural, political, and governmental level institutions and examines a few contemporary policy issues to evaluate the current ?representative? the U.S. system. The author believes that the democracy being currently practiced in the U.S. is not as representative as most of us would like it to be even given the current situation.
Table of Contents
The Governmental Level
The Electoral College
The U.S. Senate
The Supreme Court
Political Linkages Level
Independent & Free Media
Interest and Lobby Groups
Structural Level
Economy
The Society
Policy Issues/ Debates
The Impending Iraq War
Guantanamo Bay Prisoners
Conclusion
From the Paper
"The Taliban and Al-Qaeda prisoners kept in the Guantanamo Bay prison camps without trial, charges or the opportunity of defense for indefinite periods is another policy issue that runs counter to the American traditions of democracy and human rights. It may be true that some (or even most of the prisoners are evil terrorists who deserve no sympathy). This still does not justify a policy of being declared guilty without a trial. It is even reported that some of the prisoners may have been handed over to the American authorities by Afghan warlords due to their personal enmities or in order to win rewards?practices that are not unknown in that part of the world. Continued detention of these prisoners without trial (or being declared prisoners of war as demanded by the Amnesty International) does not put a favorable light on American representative democracy."
| |
|
Representative Democracy, 2008.
This paper explores whether democratic representatives truly represent their voters.
928 words (approx. 3.7 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 32.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper defines representative democracy as having representatives that will act in accordance with the needs of the people or different groups. The writer discusses different forms of representation and disagrees with majority-minority districts, believing it is more important to have representatives who represent different classes of people. The paper explains that, whether due to their conscience, their opinion on a topic, or because they feel the decision is wrong for the people, not all representatives act in accordance with the needs of the people or the groups that they represent.
From the Paper
"Does a representative have to share the demographic characteristics of the majority of the constituency? While most people might believe they do, the fact is that they do not. A representative of the people "may" vote differently than what the people want nor does the representative have to vote the way the people want if they believe it is not in the best interest of the people. Representatives may claim to be on the side of the people and even agree with different groups that represent the people, but they may choose not to vote the way the public believes they will vote. Madison tells how representatives often betray the people by voting the way they believe is right or in their own interest, they "pretend to be champions for the right and the capacity to choose their own rulers, yet maintain that they will prefer those only who will immediately and infallibly betray the trust committed to them" (321)."
| |
|
A Comparison of Modern Democracy and Classical Athenian Democracy, 2002.
Compares modern constitutional democracies and the democracy of classical Athens.
914 words (approx. 3.7 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 32.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Discusses the major differences between Athenian democracy and modern democracy. Differences include voting and citizenship rights, gender and background bias in the Athenian social and economic system, the type of representation that each society offered and the 'participation factor' in Athens.
From the Paper
"There are several significant differences between modern constitutional democracies and the democracy of classical Athens. Even though the classical Athenian democracy was a major step forward in political thought, at its height there were still many areas in which it was decidedly unlike any democracy existing today. These differences fall into three major categories: differences in who could vote, in the type of representation, and in the overall participation factor.
One major and clearly recognizable difference is that in the Athenian democracy there was only a certain selected element of the population that was allowed to vote. This difference in voting behavior stems from the fact that the Athenian social and economic system was supportive of the suppression of groups of people according to gender and background in ways that are not acceptable in today?s western cultures.
For example, women were not given full rights of citizenship. They were also socially and economically kept in a subservient role to men. Women?s function was seen as primarily that of propagation and managing a household. Women were not allowed access to the marketplace of ideas that was so important to the Athenians.
These conditions set up an interactive cycle between the social and political institutions; since women were regarded as inferior and not deserving of full citizenship, they were not allowed to vote. However, without the ability to vote, it was very unlikely that any of these restrictions would be modified or lifted. The role of women in Greek society was too firmly entrenched to be easily changed."
| |
|
A Comparison of Modern Democracy and Classical Athenian Democracy, 2002.
This paper looks at several significant differences between modern constitutional democracies and the democracy of classical Athens.
864 words (approx. 3.5 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 30.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The writer shows that even though the classical Athenian democracy was a major step forward in political thought, at its height there were still many areas in which it was decidedly unlike any democracy existing today. The paper divides these differences into three major categories: differences in who could vote, in the type of representation, and in the overall participation factor.
From the Paper
"One major and clearly recognizable difference is that in the Athenian democracy there was only a certain selected element of the population that was allowed to vote. This difference in voting behavior stems from the fact that the Athenian social and economic system was supportive of the suppression of groups of people according to gender and background in ways that are not acceptable in today?s western cultures."
| |
|
"Democracy?s Discontent" vs. "Democracy in America", 2003.
A comparison of Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" and Michael J. Sandel's "Democracy?s Discontent".
3,845 words (approx. 15.4 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 105.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses how Alexis de Tocqueville in "Democracy in America" and Michael J. Sandel in "Democracy?s Discontent" both address issues of democracy, freedom, the role of government, and the good citizen. It looks at how their viewpoints differ because they write at different times of history. De Tocqueville writes at a time when democracy is a novel ideal. Aristocracy has been the main form of government, and this, therefore, plays a major role in his writing. Sandel, on the other hand, deals with contemporary issues such as the global community and the implications of new technology and diminishing boundaries among people.
From the Paper
"De Tocqueville stresses the importance of civil equality in the achievement of true democracy. This equality implies the lack of divisions and barriers between social classes. This is the equality that he sees in American culture as opposed to European culture that still subscribes to the aristocratic means of government. The democratic ideal implies more freedom than would be possible with an aristocratic government: ?Let us suppose that all the people take a part in the government, and that each one of them has an equal right to take a part in it. As no one is different from his fellows, none can exercise a tyrannical power; men will be perfectly free because they are all entirely equal??(De Tocqueville, Book II, Chapter I)."
| |
|
Canadian Democracy and Judicial Powers, 2002.
Examines the impact of judicial review on Canada's representative democracy.
2,400 words (approx. 9.6 pages), 11 sources, $ 89.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Upon the enactment of the Charter, courts have assumed the role of "guardians of the Constitution", which is of great concern to Canadian politics as judges have neither the necessary training or expertise to decide on political issues that affect the entire nation. The objective of this paper is to evaluate what type of impact judicial review has had on Canada's representative democracy. Although it is tempting to focus closely on the more controversial and obvious relationship between judicial review and the Charter, this paper will endeavor to highlight the implications of binding adjudication on issues dealing with the distribution of legislative power since 1867.
| |
|
Democracy and the U.S. Constitution: A Discussion of the Successes and Failures of the Founding Fathers in making an Obtainable Democracy, 2000.
After discussing the successes and failures of the founding fathers, the author of the paper concludes that they mostly did a good job, but disputes that America now has a pure democracy.
1,360 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 2 sources, $ 45.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
" A perfect democracy would be a democracy where everyone- the poor, the rich, the weak, the strong- get to have a say in what the government does. Wherein the supreme power ultimately rests with the people. However, this is not reality. Instead, representative democracy can be defined in two ways: the responsible model and the popular model. In the popular model, ordinary people have a great deal of freedom and ability to participate actively in government. In this type, elections express the popular will and determine policies. Examples of this model include the House of Representatives, the Virginia Plan, and citizen initiatives. In the responsible model, citizens play a more passive role. Government officials have a great deal of freedom to act on the behalf of the country as a whole. Elections here, grant popular consent and determine leaders. Examples of this model are the Senate, the New Jersey Plan, and the Supreme Court. Although the people of the United States live in a democracy that has both popular and responsible elements, democracy here has always been more denoted by the popular model. "
| |
|
American Government, 2005.
This paper discusses three topics in American government and their relationship to modern political behavior: Representative democracy, federalism and the presidential process.
1,625 words (approx. 6.5 pages), 1 source, APA, $ 52.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that many Americans overlook the distinction that the United States operates as an indirect or representative democracy, which means that a select group is elected by the whole to serve as representatives, in contrast to a direct democracy, which holds that all eligible members of a society can personally direct public affairs. The author points out that federalism developed out of necessity as prominent colonists recognized a need for some centralized control while maintaining the integrity of individual states; today, the U.S. continues to struggle with issues of state's rights. The paper reports that reforms in the presidential processes, such as the primaries should be more inclusive and the Electoral College should be eliminate, have been proposed.
Table of Contents
Representative Democracy
Federalism
The Presidential Process
From the Paper
"The Articles of Confederation attempted to balance the powers of local and national government. They allowed the national government to coin money, manage the post office, declare peace, and select crucial military officials. However, the Articles of Confederation were lacking in many respects. The national government was not given power to tax. Additionally, state and foreign trade was not under its jurisdiction. Consent from nine of thirteen states was required to pass legislation and amendments were approved only with unanimous consent."
| |
|
Benjamin Barber's "Strong Democracy", 2005.
This paper discusses Benjamin Barber's views on "thin democracy" and "strong democracy" as expresses in his book "Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age".
1,050 words (approx. 4.2 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 36.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that Benjamin Barber in his book "Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age" defines 'thin democracy" as a democracy in which leaders are elected but they are left to their own devices concerning the majority of issues; people have the powers, which democracy provides, but the demonstration of these powers is primarily manifested in the form of elections. The author points out that Barber is convincing in making his point that "thin democracy" has a tendency to strip citizens of their sense of purpose as manifested by the voter participation rate stagnating in the U.S. at about half of those eligible. The paper stress that Barber loves the thought of a "strong democracy" in which it is not the leaders who make a democracy great but rather an active, informed citizenry.
From the Paper
""Thin democracy" takes the stance that average citizens are not interested in political matters and are not capable or adequate enough to directly participate in the political process themselves, beyond electing officials. Benjamin Barber feels that the United States democracy is thin and poorly represents the entire population at large. Significant portions of citizens are unable to vote due to restrictions or simply choose to be complacent and abstain from voting. Citizens under the age of eighteen are restricted from voting, as are prisoners, and persons living within the borders who are not nationalized. Citizens who are active in a thin democracy mainly participate in it by electing persons and then monitoring their political decisions (if they choose to do so), allowing the elected (those seen by the majority to have the most expertise and capability to discern what best represents the will of the majority) to do the actual work."
| |
|
Quality of Democracy in Iraq, 2006.
A study on democracy in Iraq, looking at how much progress the country has made towards establishing democracy, the quality of its democracy and how well its institutions are functioning.
1,800 words (approx. 7.2 pages), 5 sources, $ 71.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper takes three of the fourteen topics provided on the Democratic Audit web site and apply them to a study of democracy in Iran. Specifically, the paper assesses the country's progress towards democracy, the quality of its democracy, and the functioning of its institutions - all by using the following three topics as a "measuring stick". These topics are a) civil and political rights, b) economic and social rights, and c) the extent of participation in the political process by various Iranian citizens.
| |
|
E-Government: Digital Democracy, 2000.
A discussion about what e-government is and its effectiveness.
6,488 words (approx. 26.0 pages), 27 sources, $ 149.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper focuses on Government to Citizen (G2C) transactions mainly in the US. These include citizens? services and digital democracy. The concept of electronic government is to provide services and information to citizens electronically, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. As the demand for electronic services increases, governments are challenged to provide these services to citizens. Digital democracy may be defined as any electronic exchange of value in the democratic process. The spectrum includes Online Campaigns, Internet Voting, and Constituency Participation.
What is e-government?
Citizens Services
Digital Democracy
Political Online Campaigning
Disadvantages of Web advertising
Online Fund Raising
Internet Voting
On-line Voting Initiatives
Why Internet voting?
Requirements of an Internet voting system
Security Problems meeting requirements of an Internet voting system
Implementation Problems
Vision
The Impact of the Internet on Democracy
Direct Democracy
Representative Democracy
Digital Divide
Conclusion ? The year 2005
| |
|
"Democracy in America", 2002.
A study of freedom and democracy using Tocqueville's "Democracy in America".
650 words (approx. 2.6 pages), 3 sources, $ 26.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay explores the interrelation of the concepts of equality, freedom and democracy in history as portrayed in Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America".
| |
|
Democracy and the Libertarian Ideal of Self-Ownership, 2002.
This is an argument for the libertarian conception of self-ownership as the foundation for democracy, as opposed to other values such as republican non-domination and deliberative democracy, with treatment of empirical work on the phenomenon of voter igno
4,060 words (approx. 16.2 pages), 4 sources, APA, $ 109.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at the notion of western democracy, and how by its very definition, impinges on our everyday lives. The author defines democracy, and looks at what democracy was intended to be, and how, as government expanded, and its influence expanded that democracy has had the opposite affect, and is not limiting our freedoms. The author also suggest ways in which we can regain the benefits that democracy was designed to provide.
From the Paper
"Indeed, if we did otherwise, we would be treating people not as full members of the community among equals, but as sheep unto a shepherd, or a child unto a parent. While such relationships are certainly appropriate between the incompetent and the competent, they can hardly be countenanced for the competent, who are entitled to their own private sphere in which they can determine the meaning of their experiences and define their own ends. After all, since people are different, and even individuals change through time, no one can better know his own conception of the good and his unique set of ends better than the individual himself. The state, far removed from the individual, is in no position to make that determination, and therefore, must be neutral to conceptions of the good. The state's disallowing one to choose for himself the sort of life he leads is, in fact, a principal criterion by which we can judge its goodness."
| |
|
Socrates' Criticisms of Democracy, 2008.
A discussion of the writer's views of democracy and of Socrates' problems with democracy and the democratic man as seen in Plato's, "Republic."
2,037 words (approx. 8.1 pages), 11 sources, MLA, $ 64.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses Socrates' view of democracy and the democratic man as related in Book 8 of Plato's "Republic." In particular, the paper attempts to ascertain what specific problems Socrates has with democracy and democratic man. The paper then relates Socrates' criticisms - both those that the writer agrees with and those that he does not - to the state of affairs within the United States.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Criticisms of Democracy and Democratic Man
Freedom in Democracy
Equality in Democracy
Freedom and Equality in Democratic Man
Afterthought: The Democratic Ruler(s)
Conclusion
From the Paper
"Although it is clear that Socrates holds an uncomplimentary view of democracy, to say the least, it is equally clear to me that, conversely, in today's world democracy is largely respected and admired; countries strive to be "democratic" because of the positive connotations attached to the concept. What I have difficulty understanding is not the fact that countries today manipulate the definition of democracy to fit their own agenda, but rather why the concept, democracy, was chosen as the emulative term. Why isn't "socialism" seen as the "good" form of government? After all, in our country we are lacking a lot of the basic qualities that are supposedly essential to democracy. Yet at the same time the U.S. is arguably the most powerful, most economically well-off country in the world. There are many more questions like these that need to be explored, and I hope that throughout the course of this essay, through an examination of Plato's thought in the Republic, I have shed some light on some of the possible answers."
|
|
|
