The United States of America is a pluralist democracy. A pluralist democracy is a democracy in which groups of people compete to influence political decisions. In order to get changes made, we have movements, with organized groups of people all fighting for different things. We are a nation of factions, the most general being republicans and democrats.
In federalist 10, James Madison says, "by a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community". He is clearly defining a faction as a group of people who come together to influence politics, which he believes is how our government works. A democracy is supposed to yield to what the people want, but their needs to be a large population, or faction, of people who want a specific change. Factions will fight to stop other factions from changing policy, which is also how a pluralist government is defined, with competing factions.
Currently in our nation, there is a group of people who are moving to change the gun laws. That group is competing with the NRA, or National Rifle Association, who is protecting gun laws. Both of these factions is a group of people working together for one common goal. Vox.com says that the march for our lives movement "drew anywhere from 200,000 to 800,000 people." the fight for our lives movement was a group of people all fighting together to make a change, which proves that the United States is, in fact, a pluralist government.
Sunday, September 30, 2018
Thursday, September 27, 2018
Pluralist Democracy
I believe that the best model of government that the founders intended to have for American Democracy was the pluralist type of government. I believe this because there are many different interest groups so it would be like James Madison’s argument on factions.
A faction is a group formed of people with similar interests. Many of these groups are people with the same opinion. These interest groups are just factions that are official groups. They all have differing opinions and goals, making it so it conflicts with one another. “Extend the sphere, and you take in greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens” (Federalist #10) this shows how the framers thought how the factions or interests groups who have differing opinions over a large country are able to make moves to influence the government but there are so many of them, it is not easy for one to gain a lot of power. If it was an elitist democracy, this may not be a majority that rules but still an interest group that rules over the democracy with a motive that may to be invade the rights of other citizens. “By a faction, I understand a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community” (Federalist #10). .The framers may not have trusted the people to make decisions as all people are naturally self-interested, but they did believe in all of them having a say. They also believed how people who come together sometimes may aspire to help the citizens and others. Which is why the many interest groups should influence the government. It would not be participatory because even though they want people want people to have a say, they would not truly trust many of the people to make the wise and hard decisions that must be made.
In short, the Framers of the U.S constitution wanted a pluralist government. They did not want participatory because they did not trust people enough and they did not want elitist because they did not trust the rich and powerful.
Pluralist Democracy
There are three models of representative democracy. Participatory, pluralist, and elite. I Each model is a completely different form of democracy from the others. For example, participatory represents a democracy ruled by the people, pluralist represents a democracy ruled by groups, and elite is run by upper class, wealthy people.
The model of representative democracy that best describes our country's democracy is the pluralist model. This is proven by the many views of people, and the many political groups that support different topics, such as the NRA. Some people are in favor of the NRA and gun laws, while others do not. Also, the different groups often make bargains with other groups to come to a central compromise that they are looking for. In a pluralist democracy, there are also groups called factions. These factions are groups that come together to defend the same idea. All of the people in these factions have common views and interests so that as a united faction, they are able to prove their point more efficiently and be able to argue against other factions. I think the founding fathers of the U.S. would support the idea of these factions so that all of the people that believe in the same thing can share their common interest with each other.
These would also be supported by the founding fathers because these other groups can go against each other to come to a compromise that will ultimately benefit the nation. “By a faction I understand a number of citizens...who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens…”(Federalist #10). This way pf government will be stable because there will always be groups of people that are trying to solve problems. There will also be groups that disagree, so there ill be no way for one idea that is unconstitutional to be supported because there will always be another group to stop them.
The model of representative democracy that best describes our country's democracy is the pluralist model. This is proven by the many views of people, and the many political groups that support different topics, such as the NRA. Some people are in favor of the NRA and gun laws, while others do not. Also, the different groups often make bargains with other groups to come to a central compromise that they are looking for. In a pluralist democracy, there are also groups called factions. These factions are groups that come together to defend the same idea. All of the people in these factions have common views and interests so that as a united faction, they are able to prove their point more efficiently and be able to argue against other factions. I think the founding fathers of the U.S. would support the idea of these factions so that all of the people that believe in the same thing can share their common interest with each other.
These would also be supported by the founding fathers because these other groups can go against each other to come to a compromise that will ultimately benefit the nation. “By a faction I understand a number of citizens...who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens…”(Federalist #10). This way pf government will be stable because there will always be groups of people that are trying to solve problems. There will also be groups that disagree, so there ill be no way for one idea that is unconstitutional to be supported because there will always be another group to stop them.
US is a Pluralist Government
The United States has 3 types of democracy that’s they can be categorized as participatory, pluralist, and elite. Pluralist means that there are groups of people disagreeing and agreeing with opposing groups to get what they want & need. Participatory means that the people have complete control & have direct voting rights. And Elite, which is where the country is divided into social classes and the more wealthier people run the country. Each of these are a piece of the US.
I think this because there are groups of people with similar opinions all over trying to push for what they want to happen in the government. For example some of the biggest groups are republicans and democrats. These groups are made up of people who have similar political opinions."By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community"-Federalist #10. Federalist #10 says that factions are groups of people with similar interests and opinions. Madison wrote basically siding with pluralism. They create bargains and deals based on how they want the government to run. The people are basically making the decision.
The U.S. is a pluralist government because opposing factions in the United States. Some faction agree and disagree and want to have a say in a our government. I see small parts of each democracy as a part of the United States government, but I believe the United States relates more to a pluralist democracy.
Wednesday, September 26, 2018
Pluralist Government
It can be tricky to specifically call out what kind of democracy the United States is. However it can be narrowed down to 3 categories, participatory, pluralist, and elite. A Participatory Democracy is one where the people have all the power to make governmental decisions. This kind of government utilizes voting and requires the participation of most of the nations people. A Pluralist Democracy is a democracy that is run by groups, or factions. These different groups will get together to make a compromise on issues that the groups involved can agree on. The last form of democracy is Elite Democracies, this is a democracy with a government made up of the upper level of society. These people are typically wealthy, influential, and have many resources at their disposal. While you can argue a point for any of these democracies, the one that best embodies the government of the United States is Pluralist Democracy. This is because in the government the people tend to organize themselves in groups, rallying around a common belief. This makes them a stronger force than just acting by themselves. I believe this type of democracy is what the founders intended.
One example is Federalist #10, written by James Madison. Madison says, "Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens;" What he is trying to say is that the more diversity in a country, the more factions will be created, this helps combat majority rule, while also helping every groups opinion be heard on matters so a compromise can be reached to benefit all parties involved This is an example of Pluralist Government because it shows how factions make up our government, and we depend on them to keep things running smoothly, and to ensure that no group will go unheard. Another example of a Pluralist Government is when Black leaders decided to challenge the Jim Crow laws. This is an example of a group of people with a common interest, standing up to the government, demanding it be changed. The protests by this groups influence the political decision making about getting rid of the Jim Crow laws. This embodies a Pluralist Government because it is an example of a faction standing up to the government, fighting for the policy they wish to be changed, and finally reaching a compromise.
The United States can be considered to be different types of democracies depending on how you view it. The most similar to the founder's views, and the way the government is currently running, is a Pluralist Democracy. These examples show that our government doesn't take into account individual people's ideas, but rather the ideas of the groups they support. The groups make it easier for there to be compromise, and protesting as part of a faction, as opposed to singularly protesting, yields better results when it comes to getting issues changed.
A pluralist government
There are 3 types of democracy that the United States can be represented by. Those 3 types are participatory, pluralist, and elite. These 3 are all different in a few ways. Participatory means that the people have complete control and have direct voting rights. Pluralist means that there are groups of people agreeing and disagreeing with other groups to get what the want (factions). And Elite, which is where the country is divided into social classes and the more wealthier people run the country. Personally, I think the U.S. government is most like a pluralist democracy.
I think this because there are groups of people with similar opinions all over trying to push for what they want to happen in the government. For example some of the biggest groups are republicans and democrats. These groups are made up of people who have similar political opinions. These two groups go against each other to fight for what they want to happen. By doing this arguing, it will likely end in a compromise taking opinions from both groups and mashing them together so everyone gets a little bit of what they want. "By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community"-Federalist #10. This document says that factions are groups of people with similar interests and opinions. It also says that these factions are the ones basically who make the decisions. They compete and bargain with each other and then later usually will have a compromise which benefits both or all sides. This arguing of large groups of people is how the country runs because we don't just listen to what one person says we usually do things by majority rules and listen to what large groups want. Another example is when women couldn't vote, there were different groups of people that either were fighting for women to be able to vote or other groups that were saying that they shouldn't be allowed to. This ended in more of a one sided compromise mostly benefiting women because women were then allowed to vote after all the fighting about it.
I think this because there are groups of people with similar opinions all over trying to push for what they want to happen in the government. For example some of the biggest groups are republicans and democrats. These groups are made up of people who have similar political opinions. These two groups go against each other to fight for what they want to happen. By doing this arguing, it will likely end in a compromise taking opinions from both groups and mashing them together so everyone gets a little bit of what they want. "By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community"-Federalist #10. This document says that factions are groups of people with similar interests and opinions. It also says that these factions are the ones basically who make the decisions. They compete and bargain with each other and then later usually will have a compromise which benefits both or all sides. This arguing of large groups of people is how the country runs because we don't just listen to what one person says we usually do things by majority rules and listen to what large groups want. Another example is when women couldn't vote, there were different groups of people that either were fighting for women to be able to vote or other groups that were saying that they shouldn't be allowed to. This ended in more of a one sided compromise mostly benefiting women because women were then allowed to vote after all the fighting about it.
This supports my claim that the U.S. is a pluralist government because the two examples show how there are different groups/factions in the United States with similar opinions that will fight for what they want to see happen to the government. This is our government because big groups of people with the same interests are very powerful if they come about it correctly. They will fight with others, try to persuade, and even try to compromise the get what they want. Because we are supposed to be a democracy, the government "listens to the people". In a democracy people are supposed to have complete control but that's not exactly the case for the U.S. Its more the big groups that the government points out to listen to what they have to say and take that into account for our country. This is why the United States is a pluralist democracy.
Models of Democracy Blog Post
When the United States of America declared it's independence in 1776, the founding fathers had a rough idea about how the country ought to be run. They knew that their government needed to differ from that of the British (monarchy where a king rules all), however the details were not described. Finally, in 1778, after years of debate, it was established that the United States would identify as a democratic nation. According to Merriam-Webster, democracy is defined as a "government by the people". This idea had never been exercised since the time of the ancient Greeks, where the men met and made all decisions regarding the city-state. Therefore, there are many different ways a democracy can be defined as. One way is using the system "participatory democracy", or the people directly rule the nation and use ballots to make decisions. Another system is "pluralist democracy", or groups or organizations compete and comprise to make decisions. Finally, the last system is called "elite democracy", where the upper class or rich will make all decisions concerning the government. Though I would consider today's government to be a mixture of all three ideas, it is obvious that pluralist democracy most accurately represents our government because of the importance of the idea of "factions".
The United States in the very beginning was a mash of many different cultures originating from many different places. There were many different religious groups, ethnic groups, and working classes that were all a part of society during that time. In addition, these groups also had very different ideas and thoughts on how the government was to be conducted. Therefore, the founding fathers instilled a system in which that groups organize to exert influence on political decision making. In other words, the power was given to different groups of similar people with similar ideas so they could be represented and have a voice in the government. This system can also be called a pluralist democracy. To back this claim up, James Madison, the man who is considered the father of the Constitution, wrote a document called "Federalist #10". In this document, Madison argued that the Constitution should be ratified because many different groups called "factions", or a number of people who share similar beliefs, will be able to control and check the government's power. He meant that there will be so many different groups, having different ideas, that not one group will grab all of the power, and all different viewpoints will be heard and taken into consideration. Madison says himself that factions, whether part of the majority or minority, are "united and actuated to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community" (Federalist #10). As I interpret it, Madison is explaining how factions work, that their aim is to benefit the people that they are representing. This is clearly a justification for the use of factions, and how they will operate on the national scale. In addition, there are many examples of interest groups influencing the government in American history. The NAACP (The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) fought for the rights and liberties of African Americans during the era of racism in the early to mid 20th century. After many years of calling for civil rights among all people, the United States became desegregated in the late 1960's and early 1970's. This shows the power that groups have; they are influential and can change an entire country for the better. The founding fathers clearly meant to give groups like this the ability to make a difference in the government.
There are many interpretations to the Constitution and what our government was meant to look like. Once again, the most common ideals are "participatory democracy", or the people directly rule the nation and use ballots to make decisions, "pluralist democracy", or groups or organizations compete and comprise to make decisions, and "elite democracy", where the upper class or rich will make all decisions concerning the government. That being said, there is always one answer that is more plausible or appealing than the others. This would have be the system of pluralist democracy because the stressing of the importance of factions that was made by Madison in Federalist #10. Also, many examples of groups influencing the government are present in American history such as the NAACP. This was made possible by the founding fathers' willingness to relinquish government power to groups. Interest groups even today are an important part of our government, and this is because it was meant to be that way.
 |
| James Madison |
There are many interpretations to the Constitution and what our government was meant to look like. Once again, the most common ideals are "participatory democracy", or the people directly rule the nation and use ballots to make decisions, "pluralist democracy", or groups or organizations compete and comprise to make decisions, and "elite democracy", where the upper class or rich will make all decisions concerning the government. That being said, there is always one answer that is more plausible or appealing than the others. This would have be the system of pluralist democracy because the stressing of the importance of factions that was made by Madison in Federalist #10. Also, many examples of groups influencing the government are present in American history such as the NAACP. This was made possible by the founding fathers' willingness to relinquish government power to groups. Interest groups even today are an important part of our government, and this is because it was meant to be that way.
What model democracy did the founders want?
Kyle Hensel
Mr. Balanda
AP Government and Politics
27 September 2018
There are three different models of democracy participatory, pluralist, and an elite democracy. A participatory democracy is where people rule the democracy. The pluralist democracy is where groups have power and rule. And the elite democracy is where the upper class rule and have power. I feel that the founders wanted a stable government that the people could rule in a pluralist democracy.
I believe our democracy is a pluralist one because both the government and people have power. In this groups must compete bargain, and compromise to get policies they want. With this there are groups made called factions, they are groups of people that form who agree on the same idea or belief. I feel the founding father wanted factions and many were created so there wasn't always just one side to the argument and so there wasn't an over power to one side. I believe this because in Federalists 10 it states that "By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." (Madison) This further shows that the people held power as well instead of the government holding it all. This also shows that the people can express their opinion and feel happy. With this Madison was smart and created the constitution with factions so no one over powers. Also this shows that today we live in a pluralist democracy. Another example of this with factions today could be considered the NRA (National Rifle Association). This was an example in class because they help gun owners get the laws they want passed by congress to make the people happy. This is only done though with the compromise of congress and them. This shows they are working for a group of people that agree with them to get policies that they want and to satisfy the people. But there is also another side this disagrees with the NRA and its supporters which just goes to show you that there are many viewpoints. With this it shows that there are factions and may side differently and create problems with one another and doesn't give the government to much power.
With this there are still aspects of the other models of government which can be seen today. But in todays world no one is left out or over powered. With this the founders wanted a government where there was split power and everyone can express how they feel. With this I feel pluralists is the best for todays world out of participatory and an elite government. This then lets people be more involves but also limits the government's power
Mr. Balanda
AP Government and Politics
27 September 2018
There are three different models of democracy participatory, pluralist, and an elite democracy. A participatory democracy is where people rule the democracy. The pluralist democracy is where groups have power and rule. And the elite democracy is where the upper class rule and have power. I feel that the founders wanted a stable government that the people could rule in a pluralist democracy.
I believe our democracy is a pluralist one because both the government and people have power. In this groups must compete bargain, and compromise to get policies they want. With this there are groups made called factions, they are groups of people that form who agree on the same idea or belief. I feel the founding father wanted factions and many were created so there wasn't always just one side to the argument and so there wasn't an over power to one side. I believe this because in Federalists 10 it states that "By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." (Madison) This further shows that the people held power as well instead of the government holding it all. This also shows that the people can express their opinion and feel happy. With this Madison was smart and created the constitution with factions so no one over powers. Also this shows that today we live in a pluralist democracy. Another example of this with factions today could be considered the NRA (National Rifle Association). This was an example in class because they help gun owners get the laws they want passed by congress to make the people happy. This is only done though with the compromise of congress and them. This shows they are working for a group of people that agree with them to get policies that they want and to satisfy the people. But there is also another side this disagrees with the NRA and its supporters which just goes to show you that there are many viewpoints. With this it shows that there are factions and may side differently and create problems with one another and doesn't give the government to much power.
With this there are still aspects of the other models of government which can be seen today. But in todays world no one is left out or over powered. With this the founders wanted a government where there was split power and everyone can express how they feel. With this I feel pluralists is the best for todays world out of participatory and an elite government. This then lets people be more involves but also limits the government's power
The Constitution was ratified in 1787. The democracy Madison and the founding fathers were trying to achieve was that of a pluralist democracy. The constitution is the best support for this thesis but other documents also pertain. The people play a part in this type of democracy, but not as much as a participatory democracy.
The Constitution states that people don't vote on every issue, but rather elects a representative they feel embodies their beliefs and values. Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector ( Constitution, Article 2). However, the people still have the power to oust this person if they feel the person isn't doing a suitable job. Some people wondered if they gave up too much power and the government would become tyrannical. For example, "... when the people once part with power, they can seldom or never resume it again but by force" ( Brutus 1). Another important piece of evidence to support the thesis the founders' intent was a pluralist democracy is from Federalist 10. "Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other (Federalist 10).
In conclusion, the democracy the founders were mainly striving for was the pluralist democracy. James Madison represented the pluralist democracy through factions, majorities, and minorities.
The Constitution states that people don't vote on every issue, but rather elects a representative they feel embodies their beliefs and values. Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector ( Constitution, Article 2). However, the people still have the power to oust this person if they feel the person isn't doing a suitable job. Some people wondered if they gave up too much power and the government would become tyrannical. For example, "... when the people once part with power, they can seldom or never resume it again but by force" ( Brutus 1). Another important piece of evidence to support the thesis the founders' intent was a pluralist democracy is from Federalist 10. "Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other (Federalist 10).
In conclusion, the democracy the founders were mainly striving for was the pluralist democracy. James Madison represented the pluralist democracy through factions, majorities, and minorities.
Democracy Intended By Founding Fathers
Noah Dumont
The Founding Fathers of our nation tried as hard as they could to create a strong government that gave the people power but also didn't put all of the power on those same people. The way the Founding Fathers intended the United States democracy to function was a pluralist democracy. The government understood that people wanted to make their own decisions but at the same time those people are not the most educated and cannot fully be trusted to lead the nation while lacking proper information. That is why a pluralist democracy works so well for our nation over a democracy such as an elite democracy where only the powerful get a say. People all come together in a group to bargain and compromise on what they want to get out of what ever they may be discussing. No one individual person would get a say but the speaker of that group would speak for everyone.
The reason a pluralist democracy is the best way to ensure a stable government that is also run by its people is some of the points brought up by the Constitution. In Constitution it explains to the people that creating and national government was not such a bad idea. People were angry that the states would lose power and they felt that their opinion would not be heard and the same situation they had just fought a war for would just happen again but this time in the borders of their own land. The Constitution explains that representative should speak for those people and if they are not satisfied with what that representative is doing then they can be removed next election. This is now how our government functions and it works quite well today. This is how the Founding Fathers wanted their democracy they were creating to be run. Not everyone gets a direct say but they influence people more informed then them to go bargain and make decisions on their behalf. Another way a pluralist democracy is shown to be how the democracy should function is in modern day with the electoral college. In the case of a presidential election the people vote in their states and the majority vote is given to the electoral college who will give their votes to be added to who ever they chose to vote for. This shows how a group of people are being spoken for by a smaller, more educated, part of that group. The electoral college speaks for those people and that is why a pluralist democracy is the way the US government is best run to keep a stable government but also give power to the people.
After stating the reasons shown to the people of the United States in written government document and examples shown in modern day it is clear that a pluralist government is best for the stability and functionality of the United States government.
The Founding Fathers of our nation tried as hard as they could to create a strong government that gave the people power but also didn't put all of the power on those same people. The way the Founding Fathers intended the United States democracy to function was a pluralist democracy. The government understood that people wanted to make their own decisions but at the same time those people are not the most educated and cannot fully be trusted to lead the nation while lacking proper information. That is why a pluralist democracy works so well for our nation over a democracy such as an elite democracy where only the powerful get a say. People all come together in a group to bargain and compromise on what they want to get out of what ever they may be discussing. No one individual person would get a say but the speaker of that group would speak for everyone.
The reason a pluralist democracy is the best way to ensure a stable government that is also run by its people is some of the points brought up by the Constitution. In Constitution it explains to the people that creating and national government was not such a bad idea. People were angry that the states would lose power and they felt that their opinion would not be heard and the same situation they had just fought a war for would just happen again but this time in the borders of their own land. The Constitution explains that representative should speak for those people and if they are not satisfied with what that representative is doing then they can be removed next election. This is now how our government functions and it works quite well today. This is how the Founding Fathers wanted their democracy they were creating to be run. Not everyone gets a direct say but they influence people more informed then them to go bargain and make decisions on their behalf. Another way a pluralist democracy is shown to be how the democracy should function is in modern day with the electoral college. In the case of a presidential election the people vote in their states and the majority vote is given to the electoral college who will give their votes to be added to who ever they chose to vote for. This shows how a group of people are being spoken for by a smaller, more educated, part of that group. The electoral college speaks for those people and that is why a pluralist democracy is the way the US government is best run to keep a stable government but also give power to the people.
After stating the reasons shown to the people of the United States in written government document and examples shown in modern day it is clear that a pluralist government is best for the stability and functionality of the United States government.
Michael Angurio
This country can be defined as three different models of democracy including elite, participatory, and pluralist. I believe that we are a pluralist democracy and the next paragraph will explain how and why I believe this.
I believe that our government is under a pluralist democracy because in the U.S. various groups guide to exert political influence on plitical decision making for example what is happening in the U.S. today with gun laws and the NRA is the political group that is part of that. Another example of this is stated in the Constitution in Article 2 which reads that there is a whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled to. Which is stated in a puralist democracy that there is no single view point and there are many Representatives and Senators today that can come to an agreement about various laws that should be passed within the sate or the country in a whole.
In conclusion I feel that the puralist democracy is the democracy that represents the U.S. as a whole today. With things said in the Constitution how each state has a representative as they do today and how there is no one view point and how there are various groups that settle on different political issues like the NRA. All in all the puralist democracy shows how there are various compromises and that is what our government does today.
This country can be defined as three different models of democracy including elite, participatory, and pluralist. I believe that we are a pluralist democracy and the next paragraph will explain how and why I believe this.
I believe that our government is under a pluralist democracy because in the U.S. various groups guide to exert political influence on plitical decision making for example what is happening in the U.S. today with gun laws and the NRA is the political group that is part of that. Another example of this is stated in the Constitution in Article 2 which reads that there is a whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled to. Which is stated in a puralist democracy that there is no single view point and there are many Representatives and Senators today that can come to an agreement about various laws that should be passed within the sate or the country in a whole.
In conclusion I feel that the puralist democracy is the democracy that represents the U.S. as a whole today. With things said in the Constitution how each state has a representative as they do today and how there is no one view point and how there are various groups that settle on different political issues like the NRA. All in all the puralist democracy shows how there are various compromises and that is what our government does today.
The Pluralist Model of Democracy
 |
| This political cartoon shows an interest group trying to get the policies they want |
There are three models of representative democracy, participatory, pluralist, and elite. In these models, participatory represents a democracy ruled by people, pluralist represents a democracy ruled by groups, and elite represents a democracy ruled by the upper class. The founders intent for a stable American democracy run by the people is the pluralist model of government because it is the most relevant to today’s society and is the closest example to the form of government described in Federalist #10.
Pluralist democracy is made up of interest groups who compete, bargain, and compromise to get the policies they want. This is prevalent in today’s society in many ways. One way pluralist democracy is represented is by protest of any kind. A scenario depicting this is seen in NFL football, “disturbed by a series of violent encounters between police officers and African Americans, an NFL football player decided to take a knee during the National Anthem as a sign of protest against institutional racism in governmental agencies. His actions set off similar actions by others in both the professional and collegiate sports realms and has filtered down to some high school venues as well”(Balanda’s scenario). The football player’s actions creates an interest group, these people have the same opinions and they can bargain, compete, and compromise to get the policies they want, thus creating an example of pluralism. Another representation of this form of democracy is seen in Federalist #10, written by one of the founding fathers, James Madison. Madison’s primary concern in Federalist #10 is factions, “by a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community”(Madison). James Madison’s idea of “factions” are practically the same exact thing as the interest groups that are the central idea to pluralism. Madison specifically used his knowledge of factions to create the Constitution with the idea that these factions could function in society without one overpowering another. This is how interest groups work, there can be many of them, and some may create conflicts with one another, but this will not necessarily impact the government or create a tyranny. These factions have been coexisting successful in society for over 200 years and have been representing the model of pluralist democracy very accurately.
Although each of the three models have certain aspects that can be seen in today’s government, the pluralist model of democracy shows the most accurate representation. Pluralism is most prevalent in today’s society and it effectively depicts what James Madison described as a “faction”.
pluralist democracy
Madeline Provenzano
Mr. Balanda
Ap Gov. 5
25 September 2018
A Pluralist Democracy most accurately models the founders intent for the American Democracy in ensuring a well stabilized Government run by the people.
Pluralist Democracy is a Democracy in which groups of people form to try and influence political decision making. The groups are to bargain and compete with the other groups to compromise, in return they get policies they want. “By a faction I understand a number of citizens...who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens…” (Federalist #10). The citizens come together with people with similar beliefs or wants to pursue the changes in Government they want. This is called factions. Madison wanted factions because everyone should not all think the same and want exactly the same things because not everyone is the same. Different social classes want different things. Different roles in society want different things. If everyone was the same the Government would not be much of a democracy. This graph shows different peoples views on abortion and if it should or should not be aloud. The people divide themselves whether or not they support the issue or not. Together they weigh in on the pros and cons and then the courts decide whether or not to overturn it. The factions help the government decide.
Thus, Pluralist Democracy best achieves the founders intent for the Democracy run by the people because it models their hopes for the Democracy
Why Pluralist is the best form of Democracy
You want to order a hamburger from McDonald's. You have three options on how to order. Option 1, taking 2 hours to choose every single little detail about your hamburger, down to the brand of meat to how you want it processed to which cow you want it from, to what piece of bread you want. Why waste time and effort on a hamburger? Option 2, order what you want and leaving the chef to do the rest. Or option 3, become completely oblivious to what your getting, and possibly obtaining a sandwich you completely dislike. Most people would choose option 2, since its the easier choice for them, and it always them a say in their order. Option 2 represents a Pluralism. A Pluralist democracy allows groups of people to influence political decisions, which allows a lot of people to get a say, and everybody gets their way, in one form or another. Pluralist democracy is the best form of government because it limits power of the government, in a way that still allows people to have a voice.
In a pluralist democracy, both the people and government have power. People can create groups called factions, a group that forms based on common interests. The founding fathers wanted factions, and plenty of them, so one majority faction group would not overpower. In Federalist 10, it said "By faction, I understand a number of citizens... who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community". Factions give people some power, instead of giving it to the government. This makes the people happy, since they get an opinion in politics. In the constitution, it allowed people to vote for their senators, each person has a say. This shows the founding fathers wanted people to be able to have a voice in politics, thus they wanted a Pluralist democracy. The image above shows how everybody in a pluralist democracy is connected in one shape or form. Everybody has power even if it isn't exactly direct. Factions today, such as NRA are people who make sure some amendments in the constitutions are still obeyed. They have a voice in government and politics even though they are not senators, state legislatures or state judges. A community where everybody's opinion matters, is a community I want to live in.
Everybody's opinion matter, especially in a democracy. Nobody should feel left out or overruled, and our founding fathers even wanted a government where everybody had a voice. A pluralist democracy is the best democracy out of the three, elite, direct and pluralist, because it limits government control, and allows citizens to become involved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)