US election, who will govern the govt.

It is surprising. When we talk about different issues related with election, we never think about the question, who govern the government? Politicians may like to answer that question from the definition of democracy by Abraham Lincon that Democracy is for the people, of the people, by the people. They may claim that it indicates the government will be governed by the people. Is it real or a political paradox?

Wikipedia claimed such types of statement as ..

Although the extent of how 'democratized' societies should be may rely on sociocultural and economic contexts, Pateman claims, "...the argument is about changes that will make our own social and political life more democratic, that will provide opportunities for individuals to participate in decision-making in their everyday lives as well as in the wider political system. It is about democratizing democracy." In such a democratized society, individuals or groups can not only pursue, but also realistically achieve their interests, ultimately "[providing] the means to a more just and rewarding society, not a strategy for preserving the status quo."

How people govern a comment or participate in the policy making? it is very simple that they just select some parliamentarians for a certain period of time. It is assumed that the parliament members when decide anything, it is the reflection of the peoples opinion. But is it the real thing does they act like a mirror of the mass population?

René Holenstein, Ambassador, Embassy of Switzerland in Bangladesh tried to explaine this issue in a roundtable discussion....

The system of direct democracy has many limitations; the system is open to many diversified views, interpretations and expectations. It may be argued that the strong influence from the citizens might slow down the system to make decisions or be efficient. However, constant debates among the voters establish personal identity and enhance acceptance among the people who live abiding by these decisions.

When you select a person by voting, it indicates that he have got the maximum people's support, but not of all. I don't want to go through the debate here as the minors decision should be considered or not.. I just want to discuss about the opinion of majority and the opinion of parliamentarians and clash between two sides opinions.

Is it the right way to elect a person about whom I don't know what will be his reaction at any occurrence or on any decision making. after one years or two years. There is no such type of meter that will predict how the selected person will be left his reactions after some years. So how can we claim that the decisions made by the member of parliaments is the reflection of public opinion?

Sometimes during the process of formulating policy, law or other decisions by the parliament conflict with the public interest. It is not a perfect conclusion to see that people opinion going against their interest.

The election of US is knocking at the door now. The voters of United States have to select the persons who will rule the country for next years. It's your choice to select who will exploit you next several years.. That's also proved for every democratic countries. I think this is a mask of democracy that accuse communism and other isms not to welcome the participation of mass people. From this description, you can ask now to the democracy that weather it welcomes the participation or not.

The US constitution guarantees the right to vote for elected officials in federal, state and local elections. Competing parties present candidates for all these positions, giving voters a free choice. However, turnout in elections (especially at state and county levels) is often low. This may be because many people, especially ethnic minority groups, believe their views will not be represented.

There should have a system that actually reflects the opinion of the civil socials and doesn't conflict with the mass people's interest. Then you can term it as democracy. But the system that have been imposed in most of the countries by the term democracy, why I'm not agree with it? It is nothing but a hypocrisy with the emotion of people. They think that they are also a part of the parliament but even the voter can't enter to the parliament without permission due to the objection of security system.

In most of the countries the members of parliament hold special protocols for their personal security. Is it not something peculiar? why the person who are being selected for holding the country, require such type of protocols if the mass people really like them? Is it the cause that mass people only like them at the time of voting due to their earlier mentioned statements and they have forgot the statements now!

Today Hume’s view appears little more than wishful thinking, since it is so startlingly clear that our political systems have become a cause of rampant short-termism rather than a cure for it. Many politicians can barely see beyond the next election, and dance to the tune of the latest opinion poll or tweet. Governments typically prefer quick fixes, such as putting more criminals behind bars rather than dealing with the deeper social and economic causes of crime. Nations bicker around international conference tables, focused on their near-term interests, while the planet burns and species disappear.

So I think that the academic research should review the definition of democracy and its features for truely identify its drawbacks and suggest some realistic corrective measures for the public interest.