Just to run in the elections you need heavy corporate sponsorship, which means any major candidate is already tainted with the potential of a conflict of interest. Then you have corporate lobbyists who have the ability to push their agendas in ways that the Joe Public and everyday voter never could.

And even if you could say without a doubt that no corruptions, secret deals with mates nor any conflict of interests existed in any of those in congress (etc), you still have the issue with regards to how much power some some government agencies have and how their not run by elected officials.

Sometimes it feels like all we're voting on is our favourite puppet and whoever gets voted in will just continue on the same regime that his predecessor left. Sometimes it feels like our votes are completely meaningless as if the government suspects something to be unpopular, then they'll just go ahead and do it anyway; but more covertly.

But instead of disagreeing on semantics about "real" or "pseudo" democracies, what "real power" is, etc., I'd be interested to know how you, OP, or anyone else would answer these two straightforward questions.

1. What is it about the current democracy you live in that would need to change for it to become a "real" democracy?

2. If enough people were to work together to make that change a reality, is there anything that could realistically stop that change from happening? (And I don't just mean, you might get out-campaigned, I mean no matter how hard you tried nothing could be done.)

Not being able to change what is wrong is I think a fairly simple starting point for defining something that is not a "real democracy".

The fact is, at least in the US any criticism of government that most people have is something that, if there is enough political will from the electorate, if you, me, and anyone else will knock on doors, talk to our neighbors, find candidates, run ourselves if necessary, can't be stopped.

I know people often phrase questions as backhanded insults on discussion forums, but please know I'm being genuine when I say I would be excited to hear you or anyone else describe specifically what needs to change in government, and then explain specifically why it's impossible for those changes to take place.

I believe any changes are definitely possible if the political will is there.

You seem to have taken my post as an argument about semantics when it really wasn't; I was just expressing that I think you've taken the OP too literally when he said that we don't live in a democracy. Obviously we have elections, but his (and my) point was that the elections don't really change much because the real power usually ends up being those with the deepest pockets or those in charge of government organisations - neither of which the everyday man can elect nor control.

I do think you're right that it is theoretically possible for a truly impartial and incorruptible individual to make change; but I think that's hugely unlikely because I can't see them ever getting enough sponsorship to pay for their election campaign, nor for them to play dirty enough to win enough voters (since politicians and businesses will spin all sorts of negative PR about unfavourable candidates).

For what it's worth, I don't think "true democracy" would ever work because at some point we have to acknowledge that nobody is educated enough on every subject to make an informed opinion about it. Which means we need to rely on a smaller subset of individuals to make those informed decisions for us. The problem lies with whether we can trust those individuals or not. Sadly I don't trust our government nor the election process to generate any desirable individuals in the foreseeable future. :(

From what you've written I believe (and please correct me if I'm wrong) you're saying that your ideal form of government is one run by individuals without corruption who can remain entirely impartial. But those people don't exist, therefore it's just not possible.

I would probably be inclined to agree that nobody is above all corruption etc. (especially not the tens of thousands it would take to fill every public position in the country) so in that regard I would probably agree with you.

My point, and I hope you can agree is that, sure we aren't going to find perfect people to run the country, because more likely than not, nobody including ourselves is completely perfect. But we can look at the types of corruption and other problems in government like campaign finance laws and find solutions. And here's the most important part, because we live in a democracy, nothing can stop us. For example we as a country might say, "okay, so all of this corruption you politicians are so fond of but isn't technically illegal, it's all illegal now. And if you participate in it you'll lose your seat and go to prison." Which for some types of corruption and campaign finance laws that already exist happens pretty frequently [1] [2]

Then we might say, "campaigns are all publicly funded from now on."

But no matter what we say or do, or how many tries it takes, because all of our votes count, and we can all go vote, we can keep on trying to make our Union a better one.

[1] - Daily show clip about former Illinois governor Rob Blagojevich being convicted of corruption charges. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-28-2011/conhair--...

[2] Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. and his wife were convicted of crimes related to their campaign fund misuse. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/08/14/jesse...

Unfortunately, I don't know what to change, but let me tell you why I think the US isn't a real democracy (or any western democracy).

I remember watching the presidential debates. The question of the war(s) was discussed in very simple terms. Basically, both candidates agreed: "we have to catch the bad guys". They disagreed over minor things but that was the idea. Basically, the voters were addressed as they were 5-years old kids, and pretty much didn't have any choice.

This issue is extremely important, both ethically, economically, strategically and so on. Still, no meaningful information was given, or alternative choice or anything.

So you can tell me that the reason why both candidates agreed on this issue is that americans are pro-war, and that's rightly reflected with the two candidates left at that stage of the election. But I don't think americans are pro-war, and even if they are, I don't think there would be if they were correctly informed.

In any case, this decision is not a collective decision made by well-informed people. It's made at a higher level by people with their own agendas. What else is it if not a failure of democracy?

This is true for war, but it's pretty much the same thing with mass surveillance, wealth redistribution.

On the other hand, a friend in Oregon showed me his voting form, and their were several referendum about a variety of things. Then, there were references to what looked like objective websites that weigh the pros and cons about the question to vote for (for instance, a treaty with the indians). I find it ironic that so much detailed information and decision power was given to the voters concerning a treaty with the indian, when wars in iraq and afghanistan are summarized by "trust us, we have to catch the bad guys".

"2. If enough people were to work together to make that change a reality, is there anything that could realistically stop that change from happening?"

No, probably not. But it doesn't mean that our democracies are working. The fact is that for some reasons it doesn't happen and we're left with decisions made that don't represent the public interest (or, at the very least, decisions that weren't collectively made).