>>>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But today we have to think a little more in our own terms than those outdated definitions.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.

To family members and chosen successors.

Do you think the king chooses and trains the new king to change his own policies? Not generally.


>Dictatorships often change peacefully (North Korea, Cuba) on the eath/illness of the current.

To family members.


>A peaceful change of government is NOT "democracy".

Democracy is series of governments designed to evolve by a peaceful process.


>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.

Ensure that the will of the people is installed through a peaceful process.

That might sound like a strange condition to you.

But that's because democracy is such a fundamental notion in our modern minds.

We don't really conceive of life without democracy, where battling and killing your enemies is how the will of the people is installed, but often defeated.


>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.

Thank you for your opinion.