Hunter 8G

Closing statement:

All together, dictatorships are more efficient. Dictatorships save money on the elections that democracy’s are always having. And the money can then be spent on something more important like housing or helping victims of natural calamities. Dictatorships are more efficient since only one person is making all of the major decisions. Government is more stable since there is only one person to make decisions. No elections, e.t.c nothing disturbs the power in place. And finally In a dictatorship there is a low crime rate because the dictators have very severe punishments, even for the smallest crimes. People are afraid of these consequences, so they don’t commit crimes. And most dictatorships are police states, which also means that there is low crime rate under these regimes. This means that a lot of the time people are safe from harm. And sure there were some bad dictators, but there were also bad democracies. It all depends on the person. This all sums up how a dictatorship is better, more efficient, and safer than a democracy.

If the government goes through all of those procedures to make the country safer, then why doesn't it show lower crime rates than a dictatorship? Can we please have an example and source of an innocent person who was charged for a crime they didn't do in a dictatorship.

People in a democracy could be against each others ideas. In a way, its all the same thing, just many people instead of one.

Who said that democracies can't end in mass killings? Once again gaps can be created between people (due to reasons I earlier discussed.) Here is a source that will help show that democracy's can end bad too: http://jcr.sagepub.com/content/39/1/3.abstract

Can we have an example and source please? As this can be seen stereotype or assumption.

But it is more efficient to have one person make all the decisions. And once again, it all really depends on the person. And the people in a democracy could make wrong decisions too if they are influenced, or if they regret their decisions.

Not necessarily. How do you know the majority of people are unhappy? Source and example please.

And political officials make claims sometimes just to win over people’s votes, rather than actually working for the people. Leading the people to making decisions they regret and being unhappy.

Same goes for a democracy. People could make a choice that they end up regretting. And feel uncomfortable in their own country. And who said that the leader wasn't defending/ protecting the people. Can you please give me an example and a source. Because there were lots of great dictatorships too as I mentioned earlier.

Thats a stereotype. It all depends on the person. And the same thing could happen to a democracy. But instead of one person, it would be many people making "bad/ wrong" decisions. Sure laws favor the majority of people, but this is hurtful to the minority. So there still are people who disagree. And if the people who voted got their way, maybe they were influenced and decided that they didn't like it after all. So the majority could be left unhappy.

More things create gaps between the people. Which can cause violence. Sure laws favor the majority of people, but this is hurtful to the minority. Causing a gap, possibly leading to violence. And once again, in a dictatorship, only 1 person is making decisions, preventing this gap from happening.