"Thom Stewart" wrote in message
...
Donal,

What a Stupid Statement that is! You have to be Irish to say something
like that.

How in the hell can a appointed representative be more democratic than a
representative elected by the public.

Easy!


Donal, if you reply; please find out what Democracy means

Let me try to explain my understanding of "Democracy".

Democracy refers to a system of government where the will of the people is
the supreme power.

Most forms of government are based on a "Pyramid of Power".


At the top of the pyramid, we have the chief executive officer. The CEO
may have one of the following titles - "President", "Prime Minister", "El
Dulce", "Emporer", "Fuhrer" ... etc.

The real difference between a Democracy and a Dictatorship is where the real
*power* lies.

In a dictatorship, the dictator has ultimate authority - and the people have
none. In a democracy, the people have ultimate authority - and the CEO (in
theory) has very little.

In a Democracy, the people elect representatives. These "representatives"
should always vote according to their constituents' views. However, they
tend to toe the party line, therefore they behave in an undemocratic
manner. The "CEO" should be responsible to the representatives, however,
in most democracies, the CEO has the ability to confer status upon the
representatives. This means that the elected representatives will place
more weight on the views of their leader than their voters.

Bush wanted war. The Republican represantiteves supported him because they
would not get promoted if they voted against him. The same thing happened
in the UK. Here, most people were against the war. However, because Blair
wanted war, the MP's voted for it.




Regards


Donal
--