Talk:Democracy/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

All discussion up through December 2004 has been archived.

Archive 1 : Discussion in and before 2002. Topics: Should there be a distinction between a republic and a democracy?, Right to vote denied to prisoners?, Denial of right to vote on basis of race or ethnicity, Participatory Democracy, Direct democracy, Clear and practical examples of participative democracy
Archive 2 : Discussion from 2002 to January 2004. Topics: Origin of democratic system, Confusing paragraphs, 146.124.102.84's POV edits, Constitution, Anon's announcement, Weird edit, Statement removed, Moved paragraph, Sortition, Unencyclopedical quotes?
Archive 3 : Discussion from January to May 2004. Topics: Czaktisto's complaints/change requests, Democracy, Democracy and franchise, Democracy definition, Proposed refactoring, Direct Democracy
Archive 4 : Lengthy discussion in May-June 2004 about controversial parts of the article
Archive 5 : Discussion from June to September 2004.
Archive 6 : Discussion from October to December 2004.
Archive 7 : Discussion from all of 2005.


Contents

Bizarre taxonomy

I have just added an NPOV flag to this article, because of this language right in the introduction:

Democracies may be "liberal," where fundamental rights 
 of individuals in the minority are protected by law, or they
 may be "illiberal" where they are not.

This is not, as far as I am aware, the standard primary taxonomy for democracies. It is presumably the pet theory of some particular school or other.

Furthermore, the article fails to deal with the key problem surrounding any article on Democracy, which is that while most people agree that it's a good thing, nearly everyone has their own pet definition. This article would be much improved by stopping the war over defining it and recognising the differences explicitly.

if i'm not mistaken, the concept of illiberal democracy is from Fareed Zakaria. Thes entinel 02:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Immigrants and 'the people' "disadvantage"

How does this section regarding immigrants comprise a disadvantage of democracy? Would immigrants have not been "denied the basic right to participate in government" in a dictatorship? Even using this section as a complaint against a specific democracy vs. others with perhaps different immigration policies is weak, and POV for that matter. Who says it's inherently wrong? Citizenship can have both advantantages and disadvantages. keith 09:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

here it is if there's a desire to work with it some more...

===Immigrants and 'the people'===
Many democratic constitutions explicitly state (or imply) that power belongs to, or derives from, the people. One example is Article 20 of the German Constitution: Alle Staatsgewalt geht vom Volke aus - All state power derives from the people. The German example illustrates a recurrent problem with this ideal, because in German, as in English, the word people has a double meaning. It can refer to the population as an inclusive unit, or it can refer to an ethnic group - which by definition excludes non-members. If 'the people' are the German people, should immigrants be allowed to vote? The issue remains controversial in Germany, and in other countries where naturalisation of immigrants and their children is a disputed issue.
The European Union requires that resident EU migrants are given the vote, at least in European Parliament elections. In some member states, they are allowed to vote in local and regional elections.
An immigrant who is still a citizen in another country has the right to vote in his home country, in the government elections. That is why he is not allowed to vote for a government in the country where he is living. The principle behind this rule is that one person should not have two votes. If he becomes a citizen of the new country, and no longer is a citizen of the old country, he can vote for the government in the new country. In most European countries an immigrant worker has the right to vote in local elections and in European parliament elections, but he can only have one vote, not two votes.
In practice this system creates a massive population of people who cannot afford the often expensive, bureaucratic and lengthy process of becoming a citizen. For all practical purposes they are a citizens of the country they have immigrated to They work, live, raise families and contribute immensely to economic and social growth. However they are denied the basic right to participate in government.

keith 09:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Freedom House definition -- a point of departure for this article?

The Freedom House data set is used by political scientists around the world and is considered a consistent and measurable data set for measuring democratic freedoms. It is one of two such data sets in use, the other being the Polity data set. Polity and Freedom House should both be mentioned, and should be acknowledged as standard tools in political science, since if political science isn't part of this discussion then it's all just a bunch of meaningless babble.

--[[User: desmay|Dean Esmay] 03:45, 20 January 2006 (EST)

What Freedom House measures is closer to Liberal democracy than to democracy. "Democratic freedoms" are close to political rights. A liberal democracy means *roughly* democracy+human rights.

You all have Way too much free time

You all have Way too much free time to be bickering over this

Yeah I think all of these people are pretty deluded if they think a consensus can be reached as to what 'democracy' means. there's a broad range of overlapping but irreconcilable opinions.

Wrong

Political Scientists have measurements for these things, and if anyone can claim to have objective measurements then they do. The data sets most commonly used worldwide in political science for measuring whether or not a country is a democracy are Freedom House (a primarily US source with some international input) and Polity (a primarily UK source with some international input).

--Dean Esmay 03:47, 20 January 2006 (EST)

General skepticism of democracy

I've added a section summarizing some of the skeptical criticisms that are mounted against the idea of democracy. For a well-rounded article, I think this is a necessity. There are plenty of people who do not believe that democracy actually works in practice the way it is supposed to in theory; i.e., there is skepticism that the majority really holds most of the power. Even pro-democracy people admit that in many cases, it really does exist in name only (think the "Democratic" Republic of North Korea). There definitely should be a place in the article for the view that democracy in general is simply window-dressing for what really amounts to rule by the few. If anyone has a problem with this addition, please discuss here rather than just deleting it in a knee-jerk fashion. Meskhenet 14:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that this view of democracy as a facade is well-founded and popularly endorsed. Low voter-turnout is a very good indication that the people generally do not believe that their views cannot be heard by the system. I think that this is mostly because of their inability to effectively choose the issues and the answers which resonate well with them and which are given a fair chance in the system. In other words, most people know that government doesn't care about their concerns, their solutions, or their sovereign will. They also know that the minority pretends itself to be the majority in its execution of unfair agendas in violation of equality and freedom without challenge by the system. A True Democracy should establish the sovereignty and equality of the people at all costs while using voter suffrage as a primary indicator of success.

One more thing: This Democracy article has been highjacked by those who wish to advance various "pet" agendas for democracy, especially including "liberal democracy." No discussion of democracy should depart much from the establishment of the sovereignty (of the majority) of the people.--Andy Landen 14:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

American bias for democracy

Let it be known that though Americans reap the benefits of a form of democracy, they are as uncomfortable as anyone in the world about change, either for improved democracy or for any other revisions of the current US government.

I am an American and proud of the power and freedom brought to the country and to the free world by democracy, but I also recognize American bias and American entanglement in foreign affairs. The fact is that all men are biased to their own ways of life and that all men will use their power to their own advantage when given the choice. The use of force violates the principles of equality and freedom embodied in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution of the USA, except when used in defense of the principles of equality and freedom.

So Americans are active on Wikipedia, it's true, and this is good to see for all nationalities. But Americans are only united in their love for freedom and equality. One may legitimately stereotype some views, but in general this practice is usually wrong and bad. Please refrain from anti-American rhetoric; it's not productive or welcome here. Try to understand and work with the unique and valuable contributions, unless those contributions digress or harm valuable work.

I believe that the silent majority is less politically active because it doesn't like to shout above the partison politically active. If politics rested on the full majority, only the important things would be done in the most popular way. The faction and the mob would have no place in politics and vote brokering and special interest would become history. Please support the introduction of the concept of the real majority into this democracy article as a fundamental, core principle of democracy. Fight those who would delete it.

I love America, but even here the real majority does not rule. Democracy in the world is, thus far practiced, only a weak imitation, and many biased people would have us all remain in ignorance about that. Let your countries reap the benefits of True Democracy. Enjoy.--Landen99 15:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Q: Am I the only one who sees Equal Rights and Majority Rule as cancelling one another out? (pardon me first post, first visit,...)TParkGrrl 09:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

No, you're not the only one. in fact, the U.S. Bill of Rights was put in place partially to insure that those in the majority could not destroy those in the minority. Civil rights are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution because the majority cannot be trusted to protect the minority. Kingturtle 17:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Palestine's Hamas voted into power: An advantage, disadvantage or neutral aspect of democracy?

I personally haven't edited the democracy article, but after reading about how Hitler got into power through democracy, should a mention be made of Hamas too? Maybe some extra commentary on how democracy can result in "unfavourable results" with reference to this example can be used.

jsw663 12:15, 01 February 2006 (EST)

Wait on Hamas

Shouldn't you wait a little before using the recent Hamas victory in their elections as "unfavourable results"? It will certainly depend on the metric and we shouldn't jump to conclusions - I would still recommend that the Hamas victory be mentioned as, but I don't know that one can yet say it's similar to Hitler.

70.195.1.151 00:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting example, because there are cases where when a radical group is politicised, they become more moderate. It happened with the party they beat, Fatah (although admittedly they still have the Al Aqsr Martyrs Brigade as a wing of the party. Nevertheless they have moderated). Already Hamas are saying that they do not expect their "struggle" against Israel to be achieved in their generation and possible truces. In the long run this result may not be unfavourable 144.132.251.40 11:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

the basic idea of democracy lies in the ancient greek system even if thousands of slaves suffered for that democracy. so i suggest

  • rewrite the article reffering to the idea of democracy and not her modern applications
  • then categorize to century based types of democracyl like the european democracies or usa type of democracy even if this systems dont hold on the basic terms of democracy and just use the name and the election system to deceive the masses
  • i understand that many usa citizens cannot accept the above statement so go read some chomsky or political sciences thats why they exist to remind us of what a political system is or to clarify these situations.

so stick to wikipedian neutrality--212.70.194.21 14:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Your statements are very confusing to me. I'm not entirely sure I understand you correctly. What I can gather is
  1. The term "democracy" does not apply to modern democracies.
  2. The US democracy is not a democracy (Which follows logically from 1 since no contemporary democracy is a "real" democracy)
  3. How is reading Chomsky specifically relevant to Americans? You just established that the only real democracy is the Greek version - if Chomsky supports this it would certainly be of interest to Europeans as well.
You probably want to read up on politics in Europe. For example, the political system in France is very much different from the political system in Sweden - there are massive differences across the borders. Europe is not just one country - there are many different countries, cultures and political systems. I refer you to List of European countries for further reading.
However, ideas and perceptions evolve - how we perceive "earth" has changed a great deal since 4000 BCE and you will notice that the article Earth contains the perceptions of today - not the perceptions of 4000 BCE with century and continent divided subpages. Gardar Rurak

Vote for What?

I'm not really familiar with Rome, but I've never heard of the Republic being put on a level with Athenian democracy. At any rate, a democracy is indeed a 'rule by the people'. What can be argued is the extent to which people actually rule in modern elective 'democracies' Druworos 01:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
It should be remembered that like 1% of the people would vote if there was a vote every day on today's new law (if voting on each and every one of the policies proposed). Now would that be democracy?--HJV 01:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

POV

Indeed, Aristotle clearly distinguishes between election and allotment. He claims that in ellections, only the powerful and/or well-connected stand a chance of getting elected. Thus, elections essentially serve to elect an oligarchy. Therefore, he classifies elective forms of government with oligarchies (such forms of government did indeed exist in Ancient Greece). As claimed by the anonymous above, it is absolutelly true that an ancient Greek person of reasonable education would view what we today term as democracy as oligarchy, while possibly recognising certain democratic elements in certain types of government (e.g. Switzerland). An article on democracy should indeed make mention of such facts, even if it is about modern Democracy, which is really not at all self-evident in this article. Druworos 00:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Cons of democracy

One instance where democracy has failed can be said in two words and a letter. George W. Bush. :) --HJV 01:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

"Democracy has few values of its own: it is as good, or as bad, as the principles of the people who operate it. In the hands of a liberal and tolerant people, it will produce a liberal and tolerant government; in the hands of cannibals, a government of cannibals." - Norman Davies, Europe: A History p969. -- Drogo Underburrow 11:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Democracy vs Republic

Although the article mentions to some degree the republicanism and democracy, more needs to be said about it. True democracy refered to the majority rule of the Athen system. A lot of people at the time were against it and has been charged with titles such as "Mob Rule". So in that case there are no democracies today. Most of the world is a republic. Republicanism is a lot different from democracy. Zachorious 03:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I have created an article to differniate the classical republics from democracy; it should prove helpful in your discussions. Wikinfo:Classical republics and democracy contrasted. I hope you enjoy it; and I would appreciate any feedback you may have. Thanks. I have also posted this at the top of the page. WHEELER 18:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Missing points

I am surprised when glancing I don't find a mention of Ting Germanic-Scandinavian assemblies, and politics of Iceland.

There is also no mention of the direct democracy in some Swiss cantons.

You may find what you're looking for in the History of democracy and Direct democracy articles. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 06:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Organic democracy

Francoist Spain declared itself an "organic democracy". We have nothing on that.

Redirect disambig

I added a Redirect5 hatnote to the top of this article. I'm kind of new here, so I just wanted to make sure I did it right. BjornTheGreat 19:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Anarchists

It would help if we knew who Ultramarine was thinking of; the anarchist condition is rarely viewed or described as democracy, but I'm sure there are exceptions. Septentrionalis 20:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine's latest edit [1] appears to forget which article this is. We are not restricted to "liberal democracy". Septentrionalis 00:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
That's a problem with a few of editors of this article. They're wrongly equating democracy with freedom. If you're not in the majority, good luck holding on to your freedom. There is a bit of freedom in some democracies because it's not true democracy but more like an illusion of democracy, because people get to vote for politicians so it makes the people feel like they're governing when they're actually not. They're not actually governing because a constitution has been constructed in such a way as to protect individuals FROM democracy. RJII 04:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Most of us are outright repulsed by your version of "freedom", RJII. Also, I am curious, if democracy has nothing to do with freedom, then how come no dictatorship has ever obeyed a constitution or given individual rights to its citizens? -- Nikodemos 05:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Democracy is a good thing as long as there are protections for individual rights --that is, if democracy is restricted to just voting for people. Pure democracy is the problem. Pure democracy has not protections for individual rights. For example, if the majority of people are heterosexual there would be a danger of the majority executing all homosexuals because they would be easily outvoted. By, the way dictators have indeed allowed individual rights. Go to Dubai --it's probably the most liberal country Arab country. Of course, we can't trust dictators to protect individual rights, so elections and a rights protecting constitution are preferable. RJII 05:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Pure democracy, like all forms of government, is a tool that can be good or bad depending on who is using it. Just because the majority could execute all homosexuals doesn't mean that they will - in fact, the majority of the people in Western countries are tolerant and non-violent, so any pure democracies established in the West would likewise be tolerant and non-violent. If you believe that any form of government - dictatorship included - can go against popular opinion for very long and survive, you are gravely mistaken. Suppose the majority of the people in the United States really hated the Constitution. How long do you believe the Constitution would last?

Do not delude yourself into thinking that the Constitution protects you from majority rule. The only reason the Constitution still exists is because the majority supports it. -- Nikodemos 05:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The US Constitution obviously does not give complete protection from majorities, but it has does some protective effect. The Constitution itself was made very difficult to change -a simple majority vote won't do it. RJII 05:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Note that you said: "Pure democracy, like all forms of government, is a tool that can be good or bad depending on who is using it." Ok, so you understand now that it's a real and useful concept since you're using it yourself. So, don't delete it from the article, ok? RJII 05:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
No, I was just assuming that "pure democracy" existed as the concept you describe; I was building an argument on your premises, but that doesn't mean I accept those premises. Perhaps it would have been better for me to say "Pure democracy, if it existed..." -- Nikodemos 06:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight

In its current form, the section "reactions to democracy" makes a passing reference to the tremendous acceptance and advocacy of democracy in the modern world, after which it proceeds to describe in great detail a number of fringe groups that oppose democracy. This is utterly undue weight. If the views of those groups belong in this article at all, they belong in a section on criticisms of democracy. -- Nikodemos 04:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree; it was an effort to make a working header for pre-existing paragraphs. It could have been Opponents, but the first paragraph seems to fit the prose flow where it is. If you have a better idea, go for it. Septentrionalis 05:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
On a somewhat related note, the one-paragraph intro we have left now seems a bit short... are you sure you want to split off the "kinds of democracy" section from the intro? And the paragraph about the widespread support for democracy in the contemporary world? -- Nikodemos 06:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
That's an idea; let me try something. If you don;t like it, change it. Septentrionalis 21:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Nikodemos deleting paragraph about Pure Democracy

Pure democracy is a well established concept. Athens Greece is regarded as having the system where there was no constitutional law but where majorities exercised their will without limit. RJII 04:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

See graphe paranomon. Septentrionalis 05:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence that (a) direct democracy ever existed, or (b) that anyone ever advocated its existence. For your information, there were clearly established laws and rules of procedure in Athens. See here. Also, the voting body was composed of male native-born non-slaves - a minority of the total population of Athens.

By the way, RJII, I am curious: What is the point of arguing against a form of government that no one supports? -- Nikodemos 05:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

For the same reason that the framers of the U.S. Constitution argued against it --to protect individual rights. I'm sure there are some that support pure democracy. Read James Madison's Federalist Paper #10 for more information. A pure democracy would have no Bill of Rights. RJII 05:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Why would individual rights need protection from something that doesn't exist and is not advocated by anyone? If you are so sure that there are people who support pure democracy, please cite them and their arguments. The framers of the US Constitution were arguing against an imaginary concept in order to explain their own views better. That makes "pure democracy" a literary tool, nothing more. -- Nikodemos 05:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Let me draw a comparison: Suppose I wanted to explain to you why eating kittens is wrong. In doing so, I might create an imaginary enemy who believs that eating kittens is right, in order to demonstrate how and why he is wrong. -- Nikodemos 05:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
That's ridiculous. The point is that classical liberals want protection FROM democracy. They don't want to be caught in the minority and tyrannized by the majority. Pure democracy has no protections for individual rights. Constitutional republicanism does. RJII 05:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The point is that "pure democracy" is an imaginary enemy, not a real one. It has no supporters. Therefore, it exists only in the imagination of its enemies. -- Nikodemos 05:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
No, it existed in Athens. That was the first pure democracy. It didn't work out to well, did it? Even if you were correct that the system only exist in the imagination, it's still a system. What political or economic system exists in its ideal sense? None. Systems are ideals --abstracts. Then, after they're conceived they are put into an approximated form in the real world. Whatever. "Pure democracy" is a real concept that has been discussed for hundreds of years so you need to stop deleting it from the article. RJII 05:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC) Make that thousands of years. Plato argued against it. RJII 05:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
What didn't work so well? Athenian democracy? Are you mad? Athens defeated the Persian empire, became hegemon of Greece, and achieved an unheard-of standard of culture that formed the foundations of the Western world! Besides, I already pointed out that "pure democracy" did not, in fact, exist in Athens. And Plato, for your information, argued against all kinds of democracy (I do not believe he ever used the phrase "pure democracy").
Systems are ideal abstracts, true, but usually in the minds of their proponents. If a system has no supporters, it's just a punching bag, a straw man. You shall not push your straw men on this article. -- Nikodemos 05:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't call a system of slavery the height of "culture." Plato described Athenian democracy as a system where "the wolves voted on what to have for dinner." RJII 05:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
You think a system that accepts slavery is inherently immoral and evil? -- Nikodemos 06:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
It's certainly a system I wouldn't want to be a part of. RJII 06:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
So what do you think about people who support such a system? -- Nikodemos 06:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I notice you did not answer. Probably because your beloved framers of the US Constitution were among the supporters of slavery, and because the system they set up was one that accepted slavery for nearly the entire first century of its existence. In fact, American slaves were generally treated worse than most ancient Athenian slaves. -- Nikodemos 06:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps he did not answer because your question was ambiguous. The word "support" as in the above question is present tense, and unaccompanied by further explanation ("... or who have ever supported") this question wouldn't necessarily be taken by a speaker of vernacular English to refer to persons long dead. More generally, if "support" is taken to mean "or who ever had supported" it is tone deaf to historical context, and to ask how one thinks about anyone in the whole history of the human species who has ever "supported" any form of slavery is to ask a meaningless question. Just a thought. --Christofurio 19:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
"A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." -James Madison Now, that you've had a free crash course in classical liberalism, stop deleting "pure democracy" from the article, ok? RJII 06:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
You have still provided no evidence that anyone ever supported "pure democracy". No support = no notability. -- Nikodemos 06:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Nonsense. That's not the criteria of notability. RJII 06:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes it is. Political ideas are notable in proportion to how many supporters they have. If an idea has few supporters, it is fringe. If it has no supporters at all, it's entirely non-notable. -- Nikodemos 06:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Not true at all. That's not the criteria of notability. You want to erase a concept from the mind of man by eliminating it from the encyclopedia, don't you? That's reprehensible. (See 1984). RJII 06:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Curses and drat! You have discovered my master plan! Yes, wikipedia has the power to erase concepts from the mind of man, and I am part of a great conspiracy headed by Big Brother and Xenu to achieve world domination through pure democracy. And I would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for you meddling kids and your dog! -- Nikodemos 07:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Seriously, you know it's a real concept discussed by many for who knows how many hundreds or thousands of years, and you know that Wikipedia is supposed to make all such knowledge available, but you want to delete description of the concept from the encyclopedia. What gives? RJII 07:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, you're resorting to ad hominems now? The fact is that the concept of "pure democracy" is a non-notable straw man used occasionally and inconsistently by a number of people to denote some vague notion of "too much democracy" which they oppose. Does that need to be mentioned in the first section of this article? No, we already cover the issue quite extensively in other sections. Does it need its own article? No, because (a) it doesn't have supporters, and (b) different opponents mean different things by "pure democracy". In many ways, it's a concept on the same level of ambiguity as "beautiful picture". Do we need a beautiful picture article? The phrase certainly is used a lot. That doesn't make it encyclopedic. -- Nikodemos 07:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
We'll see about that. RJII 07:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Regardless, you can see right there that Madison acknowledges that pure democracies have existed. Obviously someone must have supported them for them to exist. RJII 06:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Nikodemos. The concept is a non-notable straw man.Ultramarine 10:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Or rather, no evidence has been shown that concept exists. The reference given does not a describe a system, "pure" is only an qualifier. Today the expression would be "pure direct democracy".Ultramarine 11:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
You question whether the concept exists? LOL. How could you question that a concept exists unless the concept exists for you to question its existence? RJII 21:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that the two of you are having fun; but can it be illegal in a "pure democracy" to propose certain laws? At Athens it was a capital crime. Septentrionalis 06:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's turning out that "pure democracy" is just another name for "direct democracy." I wasn't up to date on the newer terminology. Correct me if I'm wrong. RJII 05:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you are still over-reading Madison. The eighteenth century generally used democracy to mean "direct democracy", as Aristotle had. So when Madison writes pure democracy, what he means is "direct democracy, unmixed with anything else" (like a Constitution, or a Senate). He's not defining a separate term. Septentrionalis 15:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
"Pure democracy" is a real term. It's a synonym for direct democracy. See sources below. RJII 18:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

"Pure democracy" isn't a scholarly term. Please keep it out. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 07:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is a scholarly term. Merriam-Webster defines "pure democracy" as "democracy in which the power is exercised directly by the people rather than through representatives" [2] American Heritage also defines "pure democracy" as "A democracy in which the power to govern lies directly in the hands of the people rather than being exercised through their representatives." [3] And, there is entry for "direct democracy" in those dictionaries. And, this source here says they're the same thing [4] This source uses the terms interchangeably: [5], as do many others. And, "The citizens of a democracy take part in government either directly or indirectly. In a direct democracy, also called a pure democracy, the people meet in one place to make the laws for their community. Such democracy was practiced in the ancient Greek city-state of Athens and exists today in the New England town meeting" World Book Encyclopedia RJII 09:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Any lynch mob is an example of pure democracy. The lynchers always outnumber the lynchees underneath that particular tree. It's not bashing a straw man to make the point that such a situation shouldn't be an ideal. It's establishing an extreme by which to employ a perfectly valid sort of argument known as reductio ad impossibile (often confused with reductio ad absurdum, which is actually somewat different.) If we agree that the lynch mob 'democracy' is a bad thing, then we can appropriate ask advocates of various systems where their proposals differ in a principled way from that bad thing. --Christofurio 22:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Right on. It's amazing that this that has to be spelled out to people. RJII 04:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
"Pure democracy" is a phraseology, not a scholarly term. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 20:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

removed from article

I removed these two points from the section on necessary attributes of democracy:

  • there is constrained freedom to further the public good. Stated in negative terms, limits, sometimes vigorous ones, are essential to ensure that acts that infringe upon others freedom, such as murder and theft, do not occur. This may be thought of as negative liberty. Stated in positive terms, infinite freedom is of the essence to explore within, but not exceed, the boundaries defined by the edge of chaos, such as populist revolutions which identify, advocate for, and create consensus around new forms of government that can achieve both the social justice envisioned by Karl Marx and the economic prosperity envisioned by Adam Smith, but without fascism, anomie, or violence. This is thought of as positive liberty. [1]
  • the demos has a long-term unity and continuity, from one decision-making round to the next, without secession of the minority.

Toward the first point: "there is constrained freedom to further the public good" is an odd phrase and I'm not sure what it means. The rest is not much clearer.

Toward the second: it's not at all clear why that is necessary for democracy. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 04:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

stevietheman deleting sourced content

Stevietheman is deleting the fact that "pure democracy" is a synonym for "direct democracy." There is no shortage of sources that indicate that this is the case. Merriam-Webster defines "pure democracy" as "democracy in which the power is exercised directly by the people rather than through representatives" [6] American Heritage also defines "pure democracy" as "A democracy in which the power to govern lies directly in the hands of the people rather than being exercised through their representatives." [7] And, there is entry for "direct democracy" in those dictionaries. And, this source here says they're the same thing [8] This source uses the terms interchangeably: [9], as do many others. And, "The citizens of a democracy take part in government either directly or indirectly. In a direct democracy, also called a pure democracy, the people meet in one place to make the laws for their community. Such democracy was practiced in the ancient Greek city-state of Athens and exists today in the New England town meeting" World Book Encyclopedia RJII 20:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC) Moreover, he claimed in his edit-summary that a POV was being pushed. What POV is being pushed by noting this terminology? RJII 20:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

As a contributor to the Wikipedia, I have the same right as you to challenge content. I contend that direct democracy and pure democracy are not synonyms. Your evidence is unconvincing. Just because material is sourced doesn't make it correct. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 20:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
If you think that, then you don't know the Wikipedia sourcing policy. By Wikipedia standards, if information is sourced then it is correct. I've given you 4 sources above. One of them explicitly says that direct democracy is also called democracy. Stop deleting this sourced fact. RJII 20:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I will delete what I believe to be opinion-pushing, and that is what you're doing. "Pure democracy" is a phraseology used to denigrate direct democracy, and further, they're not synonyms. Direct democracy as it has been implemented historically is not "pure" by any stretch of the imagination. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 20:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
"Pure democracy" is not used to denigrate democracy. It's used to denigrate pure democracy, but just because you can't criticise something without naming what you are criticizing. Typically, those who oppose pure democracy are supportive of democracy. They support liberal democracy (in the form of a constitutional republic) instead that has constitutional protections for individual liberty that the popular vote can't overrule. They are concerned that the majority will violate the individual liberty of the minority --such as a if most people are of one religion and then force their oppressive rules on the minority. They would rather that the popular vote be used merely for electing representatives who then can only make rules if they accord with constitutional protections for individual liberty. I'm not "opinion pushing." I'm noting what is factual. I've provided sources. The term is a synonym for direct democracy. You have no justification to delete the information. RJII 22:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Definition of democracy

I'm unclear about what definition this article is using for the word "democracy". It begins by saying, "Democracy ... is a form of government where the population of a society controls the government." I don't think that really applies to a country in the world today. Therefore, there are no "20th century waves of democracy", etc. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 01:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Most people agree that Western states are democratic. Why are you changing democracy to "representative government"? Ultramarine 18:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
"Most people" is not a citation, nor is it terribly relevant to NPOV. However, I'm sure that most people agree that Western states are representative governments. Why not be clearer? - Nat Krause(Talk!) 20:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Nor do you have a citation. Most governments certainly state in their constitution that they are democracies. Ultramarine 20:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
It's true that neither of us has a citation. However, this is a nonproductive sort of argument, because it implies that the section in question should just be removed. And the fact that a government describes itself as democratic is, in practice, almost totally irrelevant to the question of whether it actually is. Repressive states are famous for calling themselves "democratic this-and-that" or "People's Free such-and-thus". - Nat Krause(Talk!) 20:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
See Freedom House for classifications of states regarding democracy. Ultramarine 20:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Freedom House is also not so authoritative of a source that it's statements can be taken as facts rather than as the opinions of Freedom House.
The basic problem with this article is that it begins with a definition that makes "democracy" sound laudatory or, at least, unnecessarily broad. Then, we start discussing political changes involving a fairly specific form of government, calling it "democracy", creating the implication that they are the same thing. That's a POV. We should be much clearer about what we're talking about. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 20:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Freedom House produces a well-respected, verifiable data set on democracy used in much research. It it not original research and can thus be used in Wikipedia.Regarding the definition in the introduction, it simply reflects the etymology and similar statements can be found in every dictionary. Ultramarine 20:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Brunei and India

This article says that Brunei's GDP is higher than that of India. How? Brunei's GDP is $6,842 million and India's GDP is $3.678 trillion. All Indians are not prosperous because there are too many people in India. How can a small oil rich country be compared to a huge overpopulated nation? Besides Indian economy in the 21st Century is one of the most powerful economies in the world. Standard of living in India is relatively low because of overpopulation and overpopulation is not related to democracy. I do not think that any economic/political expert would compare India and Brunei.--DIGIwarez 16:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Proportional Vs Majoritarian

The justification for the change to this section which was a day later reverted as "questionable" is as follows:

  • The first and last paragraph have retained their meanings but gained clarity.
  • The middle section was too vague to justify keeping (I shouldn't have added it in the first place, it was ideologically based)
  • I don't claim to have any rights or ownership of this proportional section, but I started it, have followed it closely, and do not make changes lightly.

I stand by the change and have made it a second time. I won't make it a third, but those are the reasons it should be there.

  • Update: One Part of middle section was important for clarification. Have added back in with minor grammatical improvements.