>>>There is a vast difference between, what we have, a 'representative democracy' and a 'democracy'. To have a real democracy ...
>>
>>
>>You need to change your definition of democracy. Maybe in the 1700s, your terms might have been useful to a population understanding the mechanics of democracy.
>>
>>But today we have to think a little more in our own terms than those outdated definitions.
>>
>>Democracy: a series of governments that changes peacefully.
>>
>>For example, we can make new laws or get rid of old laws. The leaders of our government change every couple years.
>>
>>Before democracy, the law of the land rested on the whims of one man, and all change to the government usually happened through bloodshed.
>
>Not so. And your 'definition' of democracy is way out in left field (though I would agree that a good many of your countrymen seem to think the same way.
>
>Monarchies usually change peacefully, on the death of the current.
>Dictatorships often change peacefully (North Korea, Cuba) on the eath/illness of the current.
>
>A peaceful change of government is NOT "democracy".
>Democracy is governance of the people, by the people, for the people, with periodic elections to ensure that the current will of the people is installed.
>
>In my opinion the U.S. has not been a democracy for a long time. At best it is a $-ocracy - he who has the money makes the rules.

To me that is the definition of the "Golden Rule".