The one thing I need help with in this essay is proofreading, After reading it there were some sentences that didn't really flow nicely. I would very much appreciate the help it is due tomorrow!
On Democracy
Democracy contains within it the seeds of its own destruction and decay, as well as, of life and growth. Under unfavorable conditions, it may lead to tyranny of mediocre majority, the negation of freedom, the free play of self-interest and the deterioration of individual and national character. However under favorable conditions, it encourages self-reliance, initiative, and responsibility. It makes authority a trust and ensures equal consideration for all. Its strength depends upon the spiritual efforts that people put forth. [..]
Below is an edited version of your essay. As you see the main issues were minor grammar flaws and need for flow and clarity. Overall, you've done well in expressing your views and points throughout the essay. Usually I edit only the first 1-2 paragraphs. I got carried away when reading, which means you have successfully kept my attention! Good job!
-----------------
Within democracy are seeds of life and growth mixed with seed of destruction and decay. When met with unfavorable conditions, democracy might lead to tyranny of mediocre majority, the negation of freedom, the free play of self-interest, and the deterioration of individual and national character. However, when met with favorable conditions, democracy encourages self-reliance, initiative, and responsibility and makes authority a trust and ensures equal consideration for all. Democracy's strength depends upon the spiritual efforts of the collective people.
In terms of a starting idea, Robert A. Dahl's "On Democracy" is fitting because the author makes an attempt to outline the structure for a proper democracy on a large scale. Dahl begins by examining the ancient Greek states where the democratic ideal was allegedly founded. However, he argues that what may have functioned well in those lesser populated city-states would not work everywhere, because when the population density is low things like freedom of expression and political participation are simpler. In small-populated states, however, both limitations and possibilities exist (Dahl, 2000).
On one hand, a small city-state and direct democracy can prove useful and effective in providing a center for political participation. People can experience a more progressive outcome by gathering at town meetings where there is active deliberation on matters such as laws, policies, electing or dismissing officials, and conducting trials. Every eligible citizen can provide input into the decision making process. Conversely, direct democracy can be just as ineffective as it can be effective. Part of the problem with direct democracy is that many of the majority participants are often uneducated, biased, or even prejudice. Citizens are not informed enough to make a good policy or are just apathetic to politics in general, leaving the decisions to the minority group who often times have particular self interests (Zorach, 2012).
When our founding fathers signed the Declaration of Independence and established the Constitution, this writer believes they did so with the best intent and with the support of the whole nation. Though they must have realized that while democracy may have been effective on a small scale and in very small-populated states like Greece working at a large-scale nation like the United States didn't seem practical. Our founders were very sophisticated men and feared democracy just as much as they feared a monarch. In fact, they knew that the only thing that could take away a person's liberty was their own government administration, either by being too weak to defend them from outside threats or by being so strong that they would attempt to control every aspect of life. As such, our founding fathers aimed to preserve the rights of the individual while structuring a strong government. At the time, the creation of a democracy seemed radical and incomprehensible to many, particularly regarding the open apprehension of the "mob" rule turning into an anarchy (which in many democratic states it did) and then following into a dictatorship. The outcome was the creation of a republic; although at the time, the founders were probably unsure of how successful the new form of government would be.
The benefits of a republic were significant and insured the people their natural rights and committed "liberty and justice for all" while also protecting the minority from the majority. What this means is that if the United States were a full democracy there would be no such thing as a significant minority; the vote of the people would rule over all. There were still certain democratic processes that were utilized back then, such as majority vote for electing new officials, passing new laws, to name a few, but for the most part the Founding Fathers stayed away from a pure democracy and did so with reason, as they has a clear understanding of what a democracy should be. Clearly, if the Founders has wanted a demoracy it would have been created over a republic. Further, this writer believes the founders would be classified as classical liberals, which today are most closely represented by the Libertarians. If one considers the general shape the Founders attempted to give the government they formed, particularly by how they implemented the Federalist # 10 that ensured checks and balances over the government, one can see they truly considers the people's interest.
Today the United States is immersed in much controversy over the sincerity of modern democracy. This writer believes there are blends of democracy within the republic, but mainly the nation is not a democracy. This view stems from the existence of our Electoral College. Americans do not directly vote on who is going to be our next president, whereas under a true democracy the people's vote would rule 51% to 49%. Instead, individual votes are used to elect state representatives who determine how they would like to use their electoral votes. In this sense, we are labeled a "representative democracy" but because of the unfairness of the Electoral College (giving and taking votes from states, and not to mention the large number of US citizens that live outside of the United States who are not allowed to vote) it is hard to say that the US is even a representative democracy (Grey, 2011).
If the Founding Fathers could see the state of the US government today, it is likely they would not be pleased. In fact, one could believe they would be horrified by the less than honorable individuals who hold position in office. At the time the constitution was drafted it was clear that Founders believed a smaller and less intrusive government was better. Today our nation's government is massive, and modern politicians seem to lack the integrity that our Founders had.
A battle of pros and cons about a large-scale democracy seems to leave us questioning whether it is the best form of government to adopt. While it can often be seen as inefficient, and impractical, Robert Dahl's book On Democracy focuses on the benefits of a true democracy. General freedom, political equality, prosperity, and peace, are just a few of the consequences that Dahl mentions regarding a successful democracy. Dahl's framework of the "ideal democracy" is so alluring that one could question why it has yet to be fully implemented. Perhaps, the reason is linked to the perception that it is too good to be true -- and it just might be.
In his outline, Dahl's lists certain standards for a specific group, state, or nation to be considered democratic, including effective participation, equality in voting, gaining enlightened understanding, exercising final control over the agenda, and inclusion of adults. Dahl also refers to certain political institutions that help mold a more solid and true democracy such as elected officials; free, fair, and frequent elections; freedom of expression; alternative sources of information; associational autonomy; and inclusive citizenship. (Dahl, 2000)
In this writer's opinion, to move in the direction of this "ideal democracy" humans do not need to be perfect. Robert Dahl succeeds in informing people why democracy is the best form of government, but when reading his book one can see how his efforts portray a deeper meaning of self-awareness and how one can contribute to a better form of government through individual morals, values, and participation. Dahl wants to portray the ideal of a self-governing people where the ones in charge are not self-interested aristocrats at the top of the food chain, but rather, the people as a whole --a democracy in which every citizen takes his or her civic obligations seriously. Dahl desires a democracy in which citizens strive to be well informed, not just on matters that will affect them and them alone but will benefit the entire country. However, because a large percentage of the American population fails to put forth viable efforts, the collective people and the nation as a whole are subject to crucial weaknesses and frailties that major impact on where we end up. While Dahl does an impeccable job of determining how and why democracy is the best form of government, this writer also believes his book is a starting point for any individual to subjectively see what they can do to make a difference, because while this "ideal democracy" may seem unrealistic it is by no means impossible.