well, i was usuing each like so:

democracy has the three branches (basically the US govt)

and republic as elected ambassadors end etc. a democracy without 3 specific branches.

i find a huge flaw in democracies. it all depends on human value but, in a democracy the government is given too much power on the get-go--or else the US democracy wouldn't have ever become as corrupt as it is. there is the ability to, within the "constitution", change whatever officials don't like. it began as a well-meant system (in my opinion, and i'm only 16 so i doubt many people will take me seriously) and has deteriorated into a corrupt, limited (rights...), and politician controlled system. it annoys me to such a point that i already plan to move outside of the country as soon as i can. the only still barely intact is freedom of religion.

perhaps i am young and dumb. who knows. still, all the better for people to answer this poll. educate me.

BaldFriede wrote: king volta wrote: well, i was usuing each like so: democracy has the three branches (basically the US govt) and republic as elected ambassadors end etc. a democracy without 3 specific branches. i find a huge flaw in democracies. it all depends on human value but, in a democracy the government is given too much power on the get-go--or else the US democracy wouldn't have ever become as corrupt as it is. there is the ability to, within the "constitution", change whatever officials don't like. it began as a well-meant system (in my opinion, and i'm only 16 so i doubt many people will take me seriously) and has deteriorated into a corrupt, limited (rights...), and politician controlled system. it annoys me to such a point that i already plan to move outside of the country as soon as i can. the only still barely intact is freedom of religion. perhaps i am young and dumb. who knows. still, all the better for people to answer this poll. educate me. that's not the definition of them though. re·pub·lic    https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Drepublic"> ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (r-pblk) n. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president. A nation that has such a political order. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them. A nation that has such a political order. de·moc·ra·cy    https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Ddemocracy">  P   Pronunciation Key  (d-mkr-s) n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies () Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. A political or social unit that has such a government. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power. Majority rule. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community. You can see that these definitions partially overlap.

yeah.

that's not what they teach in the textbooks though. i should've known when they defined anarchy as "lawlessness and disorder" which it isn't at all. hold on and i'll look up teh definitions in my current tetbook.

republic- supported in Rosseau's book The Social Contract, which states that the government should be ruled by the people, not the people by the government.

democracy- a form of government which applies seperation of powers among the three branches of goverment; the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. This form of government met it's origins in Montesquieu's book The Spirit of the Law.

so there you go. Textbook's suck i suppose.

I do believe in Montesquieu's trias politica, even though I think that most democracies don't have that in a pure form.

I think every political system has it's weak spots, but democracy seems to me the least harmful. I think one of the main dangers in democracy is that any idiot with charisma can become the nation's powerful man / woman.

BaldFriede wrote: Germany is both a republic and a democracy. The seperation of the 3 powers is part of the German constitution, and the word "republic" even appears in the full name of Germany, "Federal Republic of Germany". These two terms do not exclude each other at all.

speaking of--how is germany's government? does it hold up well or what?

BaldFriede wrote: king volta wrote: BaldFriede wrote: Germany is both a republic and a democracy. The seperation of the 3 powers is part of the German constitution, and the word "republic" even appears in the full name of Germany, "Federal Republic of Germany". These two terms do not exclude each other at all. speaking of--how is germany's government? does it hold up well or what? In our opinion it sucks. The problem is: No matter whom we would have voted, it would still have sucked. Politicians all fail to see the real problems. Or if they do they don't see the real solution. Though it is not as if there are no solutions around; there are a lot of interesting models for solving the main problems. But they are all "utopian". No-one dares to make some real changes to the basic system.

It's interesting to find out how that comes. Trapped in a machinery, or power that corrupts, or you have to have a real strong personality as well as good ideas...

In the '80's there were big protests in Holland against the use of nuclear power. The government offered a broad discussion for everyone. The protesters could choose: either they accepted the offer to participate in the organised discussion, or they didn't. If they did, they had to adapt themselves a bit to the discussion as presented by the government. If they didn't, they would keep their independence, but lose influence. It split the group of protesters eventually in two, and the discussion provided the nation with a big report, which collected dust on some peoples book shelves.

Just an example to show how ideals can be transformed in the political machine.

Okay, government sucks and that is my opinion. I am against government, I don't like the concept of it, and I think it steals from citizens. It puts restrictions on our true opinions (well, those of us who are smart enough to have them), and it makes our society stricter and more angry towards those who have unconventional careers, drop out of school, etc.
But the truth is, humans are too stupid for anarchism. If we lived in anarchy we would have the world blown to bits in a week. We, generally as a species, need to be ruled by someone or something. We need to have government just like we need to have religion; it is one of the things that makes up society and allows us to fulfill something when we have nothing else to do. It's sad in a way, that we can never be free from our own failures and faults, such as war and destruction of our countries, and will never be able to have peace because of what we are.  We cannot escape ourselves.

Peace Frog wrote: Okay, government sucks and that is my opinion. I am against government, I don't like the concept of it, and I think it steals from citizens. It puts restrictions on our true opinions (well, those of us who are smart enough to have them), and it makes our society stricter and more angry towards those who have unconventional careers, drop out of school, etc. But the truth is, humans are too stupid for anarchism. If we lived in anarchy we would have the world blown to bits in a week. We, generally as a species, need to be ruled by someone or something. We need to have government just like we need to have religion; it is one of the things that makes up society and allows us to fulfill something when we have nothing else to do. It's sad in a way, that we can never be free from our own failures and faults, such as war and destruction of our countries, and will never be able to have peace because of what we are.  We cannot escape ourselves.

i agree and voted anarchism.

but i don't support anarchism because i know it would never work properly due to how corrupt our society has become. It would be impossible for a nation to be "governed" by the free will of teh population--lawlessness would never work now because people are too used to having laws. I think that as humans we should be able to take care of ourselves without being told how to do so, but unfortunately it has become impossible for that to occur.

The reason I hid my views from thsi poll was because I was sure I'd get a telling off by someone who is older and who think i'm just trying to be a rebel. I'm not trying to be, it's just what I believe. I'm also an athiest but more on that some other day.

I'm just waiting for my telling off...

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others" - Winston Churchill

I voted for Tyranny

video vertigo wrote: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others" - Winston Churchill I voted for Tyranny

any reason why?

tyrannies can work well...it all depends.

Communism is and always will be the most perfect idea of government.  A community governing itself has the highest standards of honor and altruism where everyone can succeed.  Artistic expression would also reach it's absolute peak without the opression of classes. 

Capitalism is just theoretically flawed.  It provides no protection for citizens and creates and individualist, greedy, and competitive society. 

maani wrote: The situation in the U.S. is not that much different from the situation that our hair-challenged sisters () note in Germany: it does not matter who one votes for, since all of the major party candidates (and even some of the others) are pretty much alike.  And although part of the problem is indeed "human nature" - power/greed (along with money/oil in many cases) - the other part of the problem is that the transnational corporations now "own" almost every major party politician in almost every First World nation.   True, there are some differences in world leaders and their countries' forms of government, but these are largely superficial.  Ultimately, all countries and leaders have virtually no choice but to "bow down" before the transnational banks, and the oil, agribusiness, telecomm, pharmaceutical, insurance and other major industries.  This is what comes not simply of globalization and rapid technological advances (the Internet high on the list, but also telecomm, scientific/medical, etc.) but of the continued - and rapidly increasing - agglomeration of those industries.  Where synergistic mergers used to be intra-national, they are now international, with banks and various corporate industry leaders buying their competitors in other countries.  This puts the world's resources - money, food, natural resources, etc. - into the hands of a very few people, few if any of whom have consciences or even morals.   The result of this is extremely dangerous, because it creates transnational entities that can (and do) fall outside the legal and regulatory jurisdiction of a particular country or countries.  And because they are virtually a law unto themselves, their "control" over countries and their leaders is all the more troubling.   So whether it is capitalist democracy in the U.S., socialist monarchy in the UK, proto-capitalist communism in China, straight socialism somewhere else, etc., all of these countries and their socio-political systems rely on money (banks), oil, natural resources, etc.  So all of their leaders - no matter how strongly they espouse their particular form of government - are ultimately dancing to the same tune.   Sadly, the situation is getting worse, not better, and the prognosis for any reversal of this juggernaut is slim to none.   Peace.

To quote you Maani, "bravo".

maani - yes, totally serious. Yet, there are much older houses in the area.....I can see one (a farmhouse & formerly a mill) from here......do bear in mind, however, that old houses aren't necessarily chocolate-box pretty.........and ours certainly ain't!....

What about Fascism? I cant say I like in from what ive read about the ideologies but Its really only gotton two times in power and Mussolini started out good before turning sour and Franco was a pretty food ruler from what I have heard about them both.

We don't have an explicitly written constitution - which is why Blair has managed to ride roughshod over parliament - but people often talk about an implicit one, composed of many years of case law & parliamentary precedents.

 If the governemnt is competent and provides for the people, it is a good government.