Talk:Democracy (varieties)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The text in the direct democracy section here was identical to subsection text in the main page on direct democracy before recent edits. Also it was mainly pros/cons information which I think should be reserved for the more in depth analysis on it's main page. So I copied the initial definition portion of direct democracy to democracy(varieties) and put a link to direct democracy with explicite mention of pros/cons and history.

I wouldn't know how to do this but could the text on the topic of direct democracy on the page democracy(varieties) be set to be the first section of direct democracy page. Then we would not have to update the text on democracy(varieties) whenever direct democracy changes. Otherwise the only sensible thing would be to make democracy(varieties) into a link page but then do we have pages for each of these varieties? Just an idea :) Barnaby dawson 09:00, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Hamiltonian, Jeffersonian, and (perhaps) Jacksonian democracy

I came here looking for a comparison of Hamiltonian, Jeffersonian, and (perhaps) Jacksonian democracy. I found nothing, although it seems it should be on this page or linked on this page. I don't know enough about the topic myself to add anything, but maybe someone else does. As such, I bring it up in the discussion area. Scott Armstrong

66.167.252.194 18:19, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC): I've done a basic cross-reference to articles on Jeffersonian democracy and Jacksonian democracy.

[edit] Constitution democracy

66.167.252.194 18:19, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC): As in the previous topic, I came here looking for a comparison which I didn't find and can't produce easily. Specifically, I was looking for the topic constitutional democracy, a phrase found frequently in Google but not yet covered directly. The section on indirect democracy, a much rarer phrase found by Google is where the topic could exist. Based purely on online evidence, my initial impression is that indirect democracy should eliminated as a variety of democracy, given the phrase's rarity. Instead, a more specific list of types of indirect democracy should be created. This could be started by splitting up the existing indirect democracy section.

[edit] Switzerland and direct democracy

I am a swiss citizen and I would like to indicate that Switzerland is not a direct democracy, but a mixed between direct and indirect (in french : démocratie mixte), you can see it for yourself at : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9mocratie_directe that it does not exist any direct democracy.

[edit] True Democracy

Justification is requested for the following actions: The True Democracy page was deleted. The True Democracy section in the Democracy:Varieties was deleted. References to True Democracy on the Democracy page were deleted.

It is best to discuss objections on the discussion page before deleting entire sections.

There are many examples of true democracy practiced under various names, but the purest form of practicing democracy should not be excluded from on article on the same because it lacks universal practice or nomenclature. Objections to the rule of the full demos (people) are endorsements of faction rule and mob rule, where the politically active rule. Justification is requested for any opposition to the introduction of the concept of the rule of the people in any article on democracy.

I re-removed the text. I will await your references. Obviously, we cannot include this material until we can see these references (and they better be good). — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 04:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Stevie is the man that likes to delete things without thinking. The references are all over the place. Where do you want to start? Perhaps instead of deleting you could starting thinking about adding the kinds of references that you so covet. Unless of course, you are saying that you cannot imagine anywhere in the world where people vote on issues with the requirement of at least have the body (not the voters) being in agreement. I gave a few references already. I think that the workings of the American government show a great many instances of this, as do many religions and other organizations and Switzerland, etc. Now Stevie needs to loosen up a little bit and stop being delete happy and reference unhappy. Think and discuss (here) before you delete, else you find yourself fighting the Wiki community.

I am re-deleting the material. Without references, the material is suspect. Please feel free to point us to some reference material. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 20:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

First talk, then delete. Have you never seen an instance where an "election" required and considered every person's vote? If you want references then seek references, don't just delete someone else's work. What if someone else deleted your work (without talking to you) because they didn't like your references?

I've already given several references. What are you looking for and what is your problem? What kind of references are you looking for and have you tried to look for them yourself yet (they are everywhere)?

You see that the idea of true democracy, where the support is considered relative to the entire eligible body, is not original; it has just been de-emphasized by highly political individuals and groups who fear the majority. Don't yourself stand in the way of the full majority or of true democracy, but instead support it.--Landen99 15:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

If you have "already given several references", then please point them out so that I and other editors can review them. Re: "First talk, then delete", deleting content that's not substantiated either in the article or the talk is the norm. Besides, we're not talking about much content anyway; it's not like anyone's life's work was ripped out. It was also, IMHO, inconsequential to the article (esp. w/o references). Returning the material to the article can only be possible once we see some references. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 09:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
By the way, when I say references, I mean books, scholarly articles or other works that convincingly spell out this "true democracy" concept as the material covered it. Obviously, we cannot go on "contributors' word" on topics like this. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 09:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nikodemos deleting Pure Democracy section

Nikodemos is deleting the entire Pure Democracy section. It's well established that this is a real concept. There are sources and all of people using the term. RJII 04:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It never existed in practice, and never had any supporters. The concept is a straw man. -- Nikodemos 06:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
It existed in ancient Athens. There were no Constitutional protections for individual rights. Plato argued against it. More recently, the Framers of the US Constitution argued against it. "Pure democracy" has been discussed for thousands of years. RJII 06:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
It did not exist in Athens. Plato argued against all the different kinds of democracy, since he favoured elite rule. The framers of the US Constitution used "pure democracy" as a straw man, as I noted above. If a theory has no supporters, it is not the least bit notable. -- Nikodemos 06:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
"In ancient Greece it was literally true that citizens (free-born males over the age of 30, which was about a quarter of the resident population in 5th-century Athens) ruled: they were appointed to public offices by lot, public policy was made in meetings of the assembly which all citizens were expected to attend, and elected officials were subject to vigorous popular scrutiny. There was no separation of powers and no constraints on popular sovereignty. This version of democracy was most famously propounded in the 18th century by the French philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau, although he defended what he called republican rather than democratic government. The critics of direct democracy in the ancient world, including Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, had condemned pure democracy as dangerous and advocated a mixed constitution, combining elements of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy." [1] RJII 06:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Inconsistency

Democracy is divided into Direct and Indirect. Indirect is divided into Representative and Delegative. But later Direct government is contrasted with Representative, thus leaving out a contrast with Delegative government. If, however, Indirect and Representative are equivalent, then we need a distinction between Delegative and Non-Delegative Representational Democracy. What will it be? Skovoroda 14:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Classification

I find the following classification to be the best I can think of:

Democracy

Direct
Indirect
Representational
Non-Representational

If anyone has objections or a better scheme, speak up.Skovoroda 22:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Very disappointed

I happened to read the democracy article and found it completely bluffed over the fact that the original democracy was one selected by lot. It also gave the impression that America was set up as a democracy (which it wasn't). A quick look here suggests exactly the same kind of distortion of history! Please can I ask for a little bit more honesty in this subject!

“it is thought to be democratic for the offices to be assigned by lot, for them to be elected is oligarchic,” [Aristotle, Politics 4.1294b]
“Democracy is a form of government in which the offices are distributed by the people among themselves by lot;” [Aristotle, Rhetoric]
“In establishing all these offices, we must make the appointments partly by election and partly by lot, mingling democratic with non-democratic methods,” [Plato, Laws 6:759]
“And a Democracy, I suppose, comes into being when the poor, winning the victory, put to death some of the other party, drive out others, and grant the rest of the citizens an equal share in both citizenship and offices--and for the most part these offices are assigned by lot.” [Plato, Republic 8.557]
Benjamin Franklin "democracy is two wolves and a lamb decided what to have for dinner" (from memory).

How can anyone write an article whihc implies that Greek democracy was undemocratic? Why do I get the fealing that people just use Democracy to mean: "nice government". It wasn't nice it was particularly horrific if you happened to be an oligarch trying to introduce elections!

--Mike 16:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}?
But remember too that we need to (also) include what people call a democracy today. Thanks/wangi 17:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

______________

The number of initiatives that have gone to referendum in Switzerland is not 240. It is 160 of which 15 have been accepted see <http://c2d.unige.ch/int/swisspages/table_resume.html>

There are no “pillars” of direct democracy. It is a silly remark. And if there were, the “recall” would not be among them. The recall is obviously, and by definition, representative democracy.

I never heard anyone speak of “indirect democracy”. Got a reference? Whole libraries are written on democracy so there is no need, and it is inappropriate, to invent classifications here. Democracy is commonly divided into direct and representative. Representative is sometimes divided into trustee v. delegate but it is also divided into presidential v. parliamentary and also into consensus v. majoritarian (which mainly reflect electoral processes).

These various Wikipedia sites about democracy are untidy and repetitious. Democracy is rule by the people. In a perfect democracy each citizen would have a precisely equal say in making the rules. If that elementary theory (or, definition) were set out clearly then a lot waffle might fall by the wayside. - Pepper 150.203.227.130 11:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/m/Talk%7EDemocracy_%28varieties%29_fbcf.html"