Sure. Democracy could work if we were to adhered to the basic ideas behind democracy. The US system of "democracy" is a bit of a sham that where most of the people in politics come from families who have money and who spend a substantial amount of effort to influence government in ways that protect their wealth. A slate of electors has the actual say who will become president and while they are supposed to vote according to the wishes of their constituents, it's not guaranteed. Many people would argue that this system is a clear statement that the common citizen cannot be trusted to choose a competent leader. Of course, the only way it could be truly democratic is if every single citizen voted. As a rule, people who have lower income are much less likely to vote. The reasons for this are a mixture of lack of belief in the system, laziness, and the inability to make it to vote. (The latter may seem like a poor excuse, but think about it: many poor people do not have vehicles or money for transportation and many low income jobs are less flexible about giving you time off.) It seems that with today's technology we could acheive a more democratic process. We have the necessary computer systems to honestly allow a simple majority vote. We could also extend the voting period from one day to a couple of days to allow more people the opportunity to cast their vote. I don't think that would be an unreasonable request for something as important as choosing our government leaders.

Yes, it can. If wealth is concentrated, then most of the voting power belongs to the lower and middle classes. I mean, if half the money were distributed amongst only 2% of the population then they could be out-voted by the other 98%. Unfortunately for us, the US is not a true democracy. Whether we are a Republic or a Representative Democracy is debatable and I won't call us either for fear of starting a semantic argument; I've heard both sides ad nauseum.

On paper yes; in reality no- it becomes a plutocracy like we have in most countries now!

no! because all the political parties are situated in the wealthy 2% of the population as it is a very expensive busines to be in, promoting yourself etc. This means that they are most likely to have have beliefs and causes that benefit the wealthy as a group, rather than those of the other 98% of the population. why would they support distributing their own wealth??

No. because there is no continuous consumption of goods and services if the wealth is not distributed.

Democracy does work. The people make the choices. That they are easily swayed and often make poor, uninformed choices does not make it any less of a democracy. I know this will be an unpopular opinion, but democracy is not all that great of an idea. Unless the common man takes the time to educate himself on the issues involved, his/her vote is likely to do as much harm as good. When you think about it, the US Constitution is really devoted to preventing democracy. For instance, we can't vote to burn witches or enslave black people. Direct democracy (people voting on the issues themselves) would be a disaster. If your kitchen sink is broken, do you call over 12 of your neighbors to vote on what tools to use to fix it? No, you call a plumber and he does whatever it is he does well. The key is asking your neighbors about who is the best plumber. So, to sum up, it depends on what you mean by making democracy "work". If by work, you mean that people decide who is elected, then it definitely works. If by "work" you mean that people get a leader with their best interests in mind, then any special interest group will be able to subvert the system if people do not take the time to educate themselves politically. In his novel Tales of Distant Earth, Arthur C. Clark described a unique political system. Any person who shows political aspiration is immediately eliminated from consideration. Of the remaining people, one is chosen at random as the new leader.

No it can't. We live in a nation run by an elite ruling class who manipulate us in many clever ways, primarily through the media. We belive we are free, but we are highly regulated and manipulated.

What you speak of is actually called captitalism, and apparently it works very well in a democracy thus far. However, the course of the government seems to be leaning more to corporatism, a new world order of facism.

Democracy can only work in a socialistic society where everyone is the "same." At least if you do it right.

obviously not. how can a minority dictate and shape the lives of a vast majority yet call themselves democrats. how can democracy be establshed under capitalism when the economic system is based on making vast amount of wealth that is concentrated on the few over the many; exploitation.

No. People who control the money, control the government. When is the last time you say a politician hobnobbing with the middle or lower class. They don't. There is nothing in it for them, no campaign contributions. Yet, they are with actors and money makers constantly. Don't be fooled.

It does every election.

Fact from fiction, truth from diction. Democracy would work 120% better if there was campaign reform. Based on a given level of government if there was a cap on campaign spending at a set amount of $$ lobbiest would be cut out of the equasion, candidates who don't have deep pockers would be on equal terms with those who do, and said candidates might spend more time actually saying what they are going to do and how rather than wasting time attacking the next guy. For instance if a Presidential run a candidate could only spend 8 million over the 2 years of campaigning before the election, however he/she wanted to divy it up, radio, Internet, TV, posters etc,be it soft money or hard money, would they really want to waste a buck pointing fingers and risk not getting their message out? They would have to use that cash wisely as one would an ad campaign. If you blow your budget and not get your message out, you may find yourself with no votes.

Well the rich folks have the best democracy they pay for eh?

A better question would be: "Can democracy really work with such a high concentration of stupidity and ignorance?"