What is the difference between Demarchy and Deliberative Democracy?
Q. What is the difference between Demarchy and Deliberative Democracy?
Asked by Joey O. - Sun Nov 1 02:16:09 2009 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments

A. Demarchy is randomly selected citizens grouped to debate make decisions on an issue, whereas in deliberative democracy (there are multiple versions), the groups are usually self-selected (thus if you have an interest in an issue, you'll be more likely to join a group deliberating on that issue). See and
Answered by Elwood Blues - Sun Nov 1 03:51:42 2009

What sort of democracy do you think is better, agonistic or deliberative?
Q. Or any other kind if you want to put one forward. The deliberative democratic model involves a wide participation of all citizens in society's decision making process, the aim is to make judgments based on dialogue concerning relevant issues (justice, liberty, right, good, etc.), the more people involved in this dialogue, the better. However, passions and emotions are separated from the public sphere as deliberative democrats only see rational deliberation as legitimate. The agonistic model, rejects the rational consensus as it goes against the grain of human nature, there should always be a space for emotions in politics because all political issues are inherently emotive. Antagonistic (unhelpful & violent) conflict can be legitimised by… [cont.]
Asked by digithree - Tue Jul 15 11:53:46 2008 - - 5 Answers - 0 Comments

A. It would help if I knew what you meant by the choices...can you elaborate so I can edit and answer...I catch on fast, a very brief description will do...long time since I was in school. EDIT...thanks for the information...you are a good teacher. I think, based on your explanation, that the reality of our lives would fit best in the description of agonistic..I don't think that any of us is truly capable of changing anyone Else's mind when it comes to life's philosophy. I have been arguing, with emotion, for years with the same friends about politics...I haven't budged an inch and neither have they...and I can assure you, we never will. I will throw your question to them so I can look like a smarty pants!!! EDIT 2...spell check tries… [cont.]
Answered by McCain kicked Obamas Azz - Tue Jul 15 11:58:33 2008

The professor dont like my answer I can tell?
Q. so which statement is argumentative, I dont think professor likes my answer , I told him people are tired of bush administration,please help, he keeps asking more questions, the questions - supporters of the congress maintain that the institution is a superior deliberative and representative institution,or analysts maintain that the united states is poorly served by a congress that is often beset by inaction and localism , and what is the meaning of localism , and inaction ? Please help
Asked by flo123 - Wed Feb 14 01:03:36 2007 - - 4 Answers - 0 Comments

A. The bottomline is that all 3 branches are considered equal in power... the problem is that changes in wartime. Once congress gives the executive branch power to use military force, the president then has leeway to basically do whatever he wants to as long as it is in the nation's best interest. Now with that said, I would argue to him that Congress MUST be maintained as equal... with the argument as 'what do you do if Hitler is president and you are at war'. What if a madman takes control of your country? Congress then must have the power to oust him. That is why we have the structure we have.
Answered by BeachBum - Wed Feb 14 01:11:02 2007