Record at least eight examples of how interest groups are good or bad for democracy.

1. They use a democratic process. 
Interest groups contribute a helpful democratic process to protect certain individuals as alternative in daunting the majority. Because of this, many people have the freedom to express and speak their suggestions and opinions.

2. They check the power of majorities. 
In the US political system, there exist the principles of democracy, which include the majority rule, but there is also the protection of rights of people who do not belong to the majority. Interest groups, such as those based on gender, ethnic and religious identities, can perform important checks on the powers of the majority.

3. They have the ability to motivate legislators. 
These groups can easily motivate legislators in promulgating their beliefs optimistically.

4. They allow for better representation of interests. 
Members of interest groups and other social movements believe that they should better advance their causes and interests, whether it is protecting civil rights, voting rights and the environment, by uniting themselves for collective action. By doing so, they demonstrate strength in numbers when it comes to politics.

1. They would often seek for the minority of people. 
Interest groups lead to pluralism, which critics contend that there is no common good, as there are many conflicting interests in society. What is good for one individual can be bad for other people. Critics also argue that interest groups would interfere with democracy, as they seek out benefits for minorities rather than the greater good of the majority. For example, the National Rifle Association has repeatedly blocked gun-control legislations, despite the fact that most citizens in the US actually want stricter laws on firearms.

2. They only have one track in mind. 
As interest groups usually have a single track in mind, they would only think about and look at their personal opinions, and not at those of the majority.

3. They are only effective for themselves. 
Another big argument by critics about these groups is that their system can really be effective only for economic interest groups, which normally have greater financial resources at their disposal. It is also believed that these groups would ignore the interests of the poor in favor of the middle and upper-class, who have more money and time to contribute.

4. They would commit serious crimes. 
According to past news, there are interest groups that have committed serious crimes, such as corruption, bribery, fraud, etc. There are even those who were involved in some cases and accused of giving threats to domestic social orders and extremists.

answer; i believe its (jade); good luck

it was certainly a debatable decision, mainly because it was based primarily on political - and not on legal or social - views. since the congress at that time was led by members of the republican party, and the territory that the tribes wanted to turn into an exclusively indian state was predominantly democratic, the proposal (as expressed in the constitution) did not succeed, but the constitution itself proved to be of crucial importance in the creation of the state of oklahoma, and, most importantly, it guaranteed the involvement of representatives of the indian tribes in the government of the future joint state.  

as a member of congress, i would have voted to ratify the constitution, or at least to have it tabled. ignoring it was an interested and partial decision.