Talk:Direct democracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, an attempt to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of politics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article..
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Direct democracy about voting?

Is direct democracy necessarily about voting? -- Sam

I think it's necessarily about consensus, which involves an amalgamation of individual opinions. "Voting" may be a simplistic way of summarizing how this process occurs (and getting too deep into the article here on voting probably overcomplicates the process with regard to some direct democracies) but I think the wording here is pretty good. Probably what would be best here is a further explanation of the context of voting, specifically as regards a direct democracy, rather than adding caveats to the "voting system" article as I first thought.
In some places normally thought of as practicing direct democracy, such as Vermont, voting is the only means by which decisions are made. On Town Meeting Day (or more frequently on the night before), citizens listen to and question their elected officials, but decisions of any import may only be made by secret ballot subsequent to a published warning made available to all registered voters (which in most places takes place of Town Meeting Day itself). The feature which makes Vermont an icon for direct democracy is not the meeting itself, but rather, the relative weakness of the representative governing boards (selectboards or city councils) which requires most important decisions to be put to plebiscite. (All Vermont municipalities and municipal union districts, except the city of South Burlington, are required by their charters to submit their budgets to the citizens annually. Since I left the state, I have heard that some communities attempted to enact their own South Burlington-style rules, but these charter changes have to the best of my knowledge always been turned down by the state legislature.) 18.24.0.120 07:54, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
But there is a slight problem, in that direct democracy at its core means that EVERY decision can be influenced by everyone (voter) anytime. This is not emphasized enough in the article. I.e. right now it hints that Venezuela has direct democracy, but this is of course wrong, because they have a PRESIDENT that decides for them. Direct means that there is noone between ALL people that make decisions, and the end result (right now, there is a president who decides). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.103.172 (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why was this article moved?

Well, more importantly, why has this been moved to democracy? I think it definately should have its own article. -- Sam

[edit] Documenting historical successes and failures

At some point, I think it would be useful to add information about the historical successes and failures of direct democratic methods. Also, a more complete exploration of how its failures can be ameliorated would be interesting. -- Stevietheman 17:47, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Major mods, three pillars

I have just made substantial modifications to this page. I found no reference to the three pillars of direct democracy so I included them. I also think that we should make a clear distinction between DD applied to the leglislature and to the executive powers. It may be the case here that the modern meaning of DD has deviated considerably from the traditional meaning in which case the article should make this clear. If anyone wants to look into historical attempts at DD then the beggining of the russian revolution 'All power to the soviets' is an example. Of course Lenin visciously crushed the soviets when he came to power. Also the french general strike of 1968 could be thought of as an attempt at direct democracy. Barnaby dawson 14:27, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think the Roman Republic is a better example than the incredibly brief Soviet example. Not only did the Republic last for around 575 years (Ab Urbe Condite to the Triumvirate) but it was certainly also a great success. I wonder if it is NPOV to point to the brief Soviet system and French General Strike. One fine paper on the topic of voting in the past is Oxford Professor Iain McLean's Voting in Medieval Universities and Religious Orders.
I had a lot of problems with this article, generally, being familiar with a lot of classical discussion of direct democracy and never having heard of any "three pillars." Perhaps it would be useful to point out what writings the idea of "three pillars" comes from. Later in the article, the idea that elections form a part of "direct democracy" is suggested. This also does not follow any classical direct democracy theory with which I am familiar.
For the person interested in classical discussions of direct democracy, few authors come with as much authority as Charles de Secondat, the Baron of Montesquieu, well known as the Oracle of the American Republic.
JoshNarins 21:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Direct Democracy tribe

I didn't think this posting was worthy enough to go on the page in "External links," but I recently started a Direct Democracy tribe at Tribe.net. Tribe.net is a social networking site like Friendster, but it has much greater functionality and better performance. -- Stevietheman 02:31, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Major content expansion needs formatting

Much of the new material by Sneitzke is probably good stuff, but it doesn't fit in well in terms of standard Wikipedia formatting. Hopefully, Sneitzke or somebody will get to work on reformatting the material ASAP before somebody decides to do a revert based on poor formatting. Also, it would be good if Sneitzke explains all his changes here. The usual Wikipedia etiquette is to explain major changes in the discussion. -- Stevietheman 18:18, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm also concerned that the article is too long now. Needs to be edited down. -- Stevietheman 18:20, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Major Revision

Obviously, I'll have to disagree with the notions that the material is "probably good stuff", and that "it is too long now". Direct democracy has a lot of enemies. Many of those write silly little oversimplifications like there being 3 "pillars" of DD -- and that DD hasn't been used much since Athens. Especially now, when we're facing the most criminal period of representative government in our history, our citizens need sources of sufficient information on DD -- so that they can devise responsible solutions. As for explaining all of my changes, if you can read at 8th grade level or above, the changes explain themselves. I was very careful to integrate points from the last version that had sufficient merit -- there were many of them. As far as formatting goes, I reviewed many Wikipedia pages before submitting my edit and was pleased to see a very wide variety of formatting. I've been back to the major revision 8 times, not only to correct my first-timer errors, but to format the material so that it is attractive and easy to read. Having earned journeymen ratings as printer, pressman, and typsetter before I was 21 -- and having had four decades to really settle on what looks good in formatting -- I've no end of confidence that if my formatting is so unacceptable as to cause a revert, then here comes a revert war.

There are still many formatting issues left in the text. I trust that you will not revert any appropriate editing work on this material. Further, the egotism you express here only hurts you and your additions, not helps them. People will assume you have an axe to grind and will believe that your content is POV even if it's not. You may want to get off your high horse and realize that this is an encyclopedia, and the content must be NPOV and formatted well. You won't be able to fight these aspects. -- Stevietheman 18:55, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I just corrected a few of the formatting issues. I'm happy you earned the multiple awards for editing, but it would helpful if you admitted that the article needed major cleanup after basically rewriting it. Ego doesn't help your case. -- Stevietheman 19:14, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Further, I'm going to have to insist that you explain your changes fully and make an attempt to reduce the material. -- Stevietheman 18:57, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
My egotism? And you insist? Any questions you have on any of the material will be carefully discussed, as I do all day, every day on an international email discussion list that is part of my DDL website. : Sneitzke 19:12, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, I know you know your subject. However, someone else may come in here and be shocked at the changes, and revert them. Therefore, it would help _you_ if you explained them. It's clear you haven't been involved in the Wikipedia until recently, so drop the ego and explain your material. -- Stevietheman 19:16, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Once more, the marerial is written in a sufficiently self-explatory clearness that it explains itself. If you have reasonable questions on specific points, we can have a discussion. But there will be no massive paraphrasing of what I've already said clearly. : Sneitzke 19:24, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The bottom line for me is if you don't clean up and reduce the article, I or somebody else will in the near future. And you can't stop others here from changing or rearranging your material. You don't own the material in this article. In fact, you just gave it up to the public domain, and others can change it _at will_.
Also note that revert wars often end up with an article being locked in favor of the majority's views. -- Stevietheman 19:30, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You don't have any bottom line with me. Do your worst. When the revert war heats up sufficiently to get a democratic vote on whose version should be locked in, we will have arrived at where I live. Let the people decide. : Sneitzke
I'm sorry that you're treating this as some kind of war or something. That's generally viewed as an unwelcome approach here. You don't know everything about the subject of direct democracy. There are many others who are knowledgeable, and they have a right to alter the material you just added. If you don't accept this premise, you're going to experience many problems in the Wikipedia. -- Stevietheman 19:45, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Also, I need to remark that when I said your material was "probably good stuff", that was meant as a compliment. It's sad you couldn't see that. It's becoming increasingly apparent from your responses here in discussion that the main purpose for your contributions is to start an edit war rather than contribute useful material. -- Stevietheman 19:50, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Restored original version

I restored the original article. After reviewing new text, it references the new author's website (ddleague) many times, the text is overly verbose, and there's too much POV. I find all of these elements, esp. the repeated advertising of Sneitzke's website to be in violation of Wikipedia rules. It just smells badly.

I certainly think that the article can be expanded, but not like this. What was done to the article recently was wrong, and I will oppose any attempts to bring it back in the same form.

If Sneitzke wants to reintroduce some of his content, he will need to be incremental and responsible in doing so. This is an _encyclopedia, not Sneitzke's soapbox. -- Stevietheman 06:37, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Revert To Revision

I find Stevietheman's treatment of both me and my material childish in the extreme. His article on DD is similarly childish, especially in its oversimplified "3 pillars" metaphor. I've shortened the revision to bring it under the prescribed 32 KB, and still need to take out some more, but my systematic presentation of material is sound. Mentions of my web site, which has been dedicated to international DD since its inception in March 1998, were not attempts to advertise the site, they were simply documenting the source of logic and reasoning reported in the revision, in accord with Wikipedia rules. I've now removed most of those mentions.

My presentation of DD material is not dependent on Stevietheman's childish demands. I'll take this as far as necessary to get either an authoritative ruling or a democratic vote between the two articles. Just now, the American people need information that can point them to solutions, not Stevietheman's uninformed ego trip. This is an encyclopedia, not Stevietheman's private toybox.

Sneitzke 08:44, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The original article wasn't _my_ article. Your self-advertising links are wholly inappropriate and break Wikipedia rules. -- Stevietheman 14:37, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] New version of article archived here

The article having been recently completely rewritten and there having been some discussion as to the value of these changes the new version is archived here: talk:Direct democracy/New version.

I suggest that efforts are made to integrate as much material from this new version as possible. I shall help out in doing this. I dropped a note on user talk:Sneitzke's talk page explaining why I've done this in more detail. Barnaby dawson 09:21, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have now integrated sections on american direct democracy, digital direct democracy and the traditional definition of direct democracy. These are substantial portions of text (1/4 to a 1/3 of the archived text). More work needs doing on the history section. I think it is the pros and cons section that was causing the accusations of POV. The pros and cons is was re-written entirely from a pro DD stance. I agree with much that it says but it is not appropriate for encylopedia text. I suggest moving it to a sub page of user:Sneitzke's. Or maybe we can get in some critics of DD to help us rework it for inclusion (I'm unsure about attempting this myself as I am pro DD and therefore not the best for this job (although I would ensure that relevent pro points were not deleted)).

The history section has also been dealt with. I put the history of direct democracy in the US on a separate page refferenced to in the text. I think the other section about direct democracy in the US might be best moved to another page as well. Barnaby dawson 10:43, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Barnaby, I generally agree with your approach. It's responsible and reflects a genuine caring for the article. This article and the spun-off history article still require a good deal of reformatting, which I will attempt shortly.
By the way, if Sneitzke's accusations about me were true, I'd be reverting your responsible changes too. But of course I'm not. :) -- Stevietheman 14:41, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I restored the new References section. I'll leave it up to others to decide which references should stay and which should not. But it looks like a good many of them are useful. -- Stevietheman 15:47, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Local direct democracy in the US

Re: "In the United States, only single majorities are required (simple majority of those voting) to approve any of the direct democracy petition components."

Various localities around the US also provide for initiatives, and in specific classes of these initiatives (like those for raising taxes), there is a supermajority requirement.

I bring this up only for us to figure out where and how to integrate this material, if it should be integrated. -- Stevietheman 04:04, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I went ahead and added this material. -- Stevietheman 14:02, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Electronic direct democracy

I'm going to start up a new wikipage describing electronic direct democracy. I've tried to ensure that there isn't already a page up about this subject (with perhaps a similar name) but haven't found anything. The closest seems to be internet democracy but that isn't a term describing a system but rather a collection of technocratic meens to enhance decision making much like e-democracy. Doing a google search on Electronic direct democracy (in quotes) gives 290 results one of which is an article in the economist so I think that gives it validity as the a name for the concept. Barnaby dawson 10:25, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How about expanding the e-democracy article with this? What else is electronic direct democracy but a collection of technocratic means to enhance direct democracy, which is direct public policy decision-making by the public? In fact, many people I know who speak of e-democracy uses it as a synonym for making democracy "more direct". With these terms so intertwined, a new article doesn't make much sense to me. On top of that, it may not survive a VfD, as Google hits alone aren't the arbiter of noteworthiness. -- Stevietheman 14:52, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think that the concept of enhancing direct democracy using technocratic means deserves its own page. The concept is in use by many groups of direct democracy advocates around the world (although not necessarily with the name EDD) with a meaning seperable from that given in e-democracy. It is IMHO the main reason for the resurgence of the concept of direct democracy in the political sphere. However, I am concerned that the name that I've given to it isn't the most appropriate one. I chose electronic direct democracy because thats the name used on direct democracy forum. I did the google search to get some confidence that the name is used outside of that sphere. I shall work on this page but I may also copy some material across to e-democracy. I think that the problem we have here may be that DD advocates create concepts that are then used by the media and government in a watered down version. Hence e-democracy is sometimes used to mean just discussion forums or providing government services electronically. But we should represent the concept properly and in order to do so we must give some name for it. I have encountered digital-democracy, electronic democracy, electronic direct democracy and e-democracy. But it seemed that electronic direct democracy was less watered down in its usage. What do you think? Do you agree that this concept needs representing? What do you think is the best name for it? Perhaps you think it should be a subsection in e-democracy or maybe on direct democracy? Barnaby dawson 09:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I believe EDD deserves representation within the E-democracy article. There are many instances of articles within the Wikipedia where several concepts are combined into one article. For instance, the concept "semi-direct democracy" is folded into direct democracy. I don't see a problem with doing this. At any rate, EDD to me sounds like too recent a coinage (that is, non-notable) to deserve its own article. -- Stevietheman 12:11, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Ok this seems reasonable. I have copied the text across from electronic direct democracy to E-democracy and I shall request deletion of electronic direct democracy. Barnaby dawson 16:41, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Looks good. Thanks. I would recommend a redirect from Electronic direct democracy to E-democracy instead of outright deleting the article. -- Stevietheman 17:14, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Citizen assemblies

There was some badly phrased and ill written material added recently to the introduction. I cleaned it up a bit and removed the reference to a "fourth pillar" of citizen assemblies. Anyone think that the citizen assemblies should be considered a fourth pillar? Barnaby dawson 03:48, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Citizen assemblies are the first pillar. None of these other "three pillars" are a part of any classical theory of direct democracy of which I am aware. Several Swiss Cantons have huge outdoor meetings of citizens. The ancient Greeks had the Agora. The ancient Greeks did not have recall elections, nor elections of any sort (except for ostracism), nor did they have referenda.
If the sovereignity is lodged in the assembly of the citizenry, you have a direct democracy. Recall elections, referenda and initiatives are certainly closer to that than to elected representation, and so should be counted among tools (in the camp of|moving in the direction of) direct democracy. JoshNarins 14:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Citizen involvement and activism

Some effort should be made to broaden the definition of "direct democracy" to include efforts that give citizens the ability to participate directly (or more directly than before) in the legislative, public policy and regulation creation process. Some of this will naturally bleed into the e-democracy topic, but there's nothing wrong with some overlap here. --Stevietheman 06:33, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes and revert

(Moved from Stevietheman's talk)

You reverted back to your version after my changes.

I see your perspective as a typical american view on direct democracy. It is far away from a correct international perspective.

Your writing gives the impression that people normally are only politically active once every four years, when you elect the person who will get all power for the next four years. Maybe it works like that in your country, but in politically advanced nations the people are involved in the political process every day.

In the system you assume it is natural that the alternative and complement will be a way to impeach or question a certain official, who may have to resign as a result of the referendum. Who is elected is very important, because he gets a lot of power and responsibility. It takes some really serious event to get him to resign, of course.

You also talk about direct democracy as meaning a lot of special referendums, like in Switzerland.

You seem to be totally unaware of how a modern transparent democracy works, as it works in northern Europe, and it has been adopted by the whole EU as a goal to strive for.

It is another form of direct democracy, where every citizen has the right to get all possible information from the authorities, the right to get involved in any discussion and decision making, every day, not just once every 4 years.

Millions of people are involved in the political process every day in northern Europe, and the numbers are increasing as people learn to use computers to be present in the city council meetings, to write own articles, participate in the public discussion, set up blogs or websites to organize opinion, and send emails.

In Europe the persons to be elected are not important, as we are voting for a political program, not a person. And we will get involved all the time in how things are done in the workplace, county or the government or United Nations, so it doesn't matter much who is elected, we will make sure he or rather the team leading the party run the country as we want it to be run.

You talk about a more primitive political system, where the citizens only have a say once every 4 years, and maybe can force a resignation of somebody in the time between elections.

An encyklopedia filld with the best knowledge in the world should not give such a primitive and undeveloped view of direct democracy, when direct democracy means so much more than what you are describing.

The young actress Amber Tamblyn expressed the american level of political maturity when she wanted to motivate youngsters to go and vote:

"We should be happy to live in the only single country in the world where the people gets a chance to say their meaning. So go and vote, everybody."

Incredible quote, and I know it is correct, I heard her say it myself on the tonight show before the election.

She may be one of the brightest and most beautiful young actresses, but she definitely has an american education. She knows practically nothing about the rest of the world, or the world history of politics.

Roger J.

First, it's not "my" article at all. I think you're confusing "direct democracy" with other democracy-related concepts. Perhaps there's another article where your concepts fit. But modern direct democracy does indeed have the three pillars as listed. You're the only one in years who has come along to dispute it. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 06:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't care who's article it is. I fixed the fault, changed the totally american view of direct democracy, and added an international view. Your "3 pillars" should be in the US-american section about direct democracy. Modern democratic systems do not work like the american political system. Probably because I am the first politically educated non-american to edit that section. Please understand that USA has a very backward political system, similar to the political system in many third world countries, like the Philippines, where the voters get to choose from 2 rich candidates who represent a bunch of corporations each. They have no democracy inbetween the elections, so it is like voting for a new dictator. It is a pseudo-democracy ruled by the big corporations who owns the media channels. The people in such countries have a very low political maturity, they have very little means of influencing the political processes between the elections. They have no knowledge of how a modern democratic system works. With your very limited knowledge of politics in the rest of the world you should not talk to an international audience about modern political tools and processes. And you should not delete what wiser people write in the Wikipedia. -- Roger J.
Your position is not based on fact and I will revert any changes to your mistaken view of direct democracy. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 17:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
The Oracle of the American Republic, whose work George Washington studied for the convention, was the Baron of Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat. Montesquieu describes direct democracy in great detail. Although I don't agree with DD as Roger J describes it, I also think StevieTheMan has someone with a classical liberal arts education who is saying the "three pillars" idea is flat out wrong. So please count me among the people who comes along "in years" to dispute this. JoshNarins 14:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The reason I think it is a serious issue is that people who look for more direct ways to influence the political process may look up the word direct-democracy and are then given totally inappropriate tools and a faulty definition in a modern democracy.

I saw yesterday on discovery a program about 3 youngsters in usa who killed a person, because they could find no other way to handle the situation.

They did nothing, nothing, nothing, and then they killed him. They had only learned to use desperate lastminute tools, tools you use when all other means are useless. Like violence.

The article I fixed was similar, it ignored all the peaceful and legal means to directly influence politics, before a decision is made, but it gave the ultimate tools, to get somebody impeached, to get a referendum realized and reverse a decision, etc..

These methods are desperate tools, you use when the real direct democracy doesn't work, they are not the pillars of direct democracy.

Direct democracy in a modern democracy means getting involved in an issue and using many different, but peaceful and fair means you can influence a coming decision. For that to work the democracy has to be transparent.

Any citizen or reporter has the right to get informed about everything the authority or institution is doing, is planning, is discussing, etc..

In Europe you can, in several countries, participate via internet, write your own articles and get involved in the discussion, you can organize people with similar views to work for a certain decision.

Americans are not used to participate in the democratic processes every day at many levels. They don't have the tools for that, so they can just get angrier and angrier,until it explodes somehow.

An article which is to be read by the people of the world should give a well updated article about what direct democracy means, in the most advanced and leading political areas of the world.

To exaggerate slightly, to make it clear, if a bolivian had written the article he might have said that direct democracy is taking an AK-47 and go into the jungle and fight the authorities.

That would be a very bad advice, and a historically faulty definition of "direct democracy".

The article should tell us about different forms of direct democracy in Europe, because there are the most active and politically mature people, and the kind of democracy other countries see as ideals to aim for in their own countries.

Roger J.

Stevie:

What you are describing isn't "direct democracy", but perhaps "democratic participation". Perhaps you should look at the direct action article, as it appears to be closer to what you are describing.

RJ: Direct action is about illegal or bordering to illegal actions,DI is an anarchist movement, they think it will help to scare up the society, to alert people, to find an outlet for their own anger, to militarize the police force. DI is used by the reactionary forces, as that kind of political struggle serves their agenda.

Portraying DI as "direct democracy" would be an even bigger mistake than what Stevie wrote.

It surprises me how easy it is, in some countries, to hijack an expression, and steer all who hear it into seeing the world in a certain way, or into using certain tools.

A dictionary should not aim to split up reality into as many watertight and totally isolated compartments as possible. But that is exactly what Stevie is doing here. If a lot of expressions have very special meanings it controls the mind, and that is what some nations use to confuse their population.

Roger J.

[edit] Revisions to Arguments for ~ and Criticisms of ~

I have cut both these sections right back as they read like non-neutral, unsourced, originally researched polemic. If someone can cite sources for the controversial arguments cited, feel free to put them back, but it looked pretty suspect to me. ElectricRay 23:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

You seemed to cut more out than just that. Some of the statements I had, such as that representatives tend to be more male than their constituency, can be quite easily verified. My example of the disruption caused by the changeover in governments from the Clinton Administration to the Bush Administration being listed as a cause for the lack of preparedness for 9-11 can also be easily verified. So, I'm going to put those items back in. StuRat 21:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Also, as a general rule, you shouldn't demand proof of every little thing, as that would require a lengthy bibliography for every paragraph. Only statements which are "suspect" should be required to be backed up with proof. Referring to the claim that representatives are more male than the general population, do you really doubt that this is true ? One look at a pic of the representatives from your country should show you that the majority are male. Now, if I had made a claim that the majority of representatives had an extra Y chomosome, that would be "suspect" enough that proof should be demanded. StuRat 22:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
The point you make - which is necessarily correct - is that the representatives aren't, and cannot be, completely *representative* of the population. That point made, you should leave it at that, and avoid allegations of non neutral point of view. The statement about lack of preparedness for 9/11, for example, is an extremely loaded political argument which simply cannot not be proven one way or another, and on which I have no doubt opinion would be divided straight down party lines, as is pretty much all political opinion in America (I'm not American). There are any number of reasons for lack of preparedness for 9/11, all of them are utter conjecture, and none are fit for inclusion in an Encyclopaedia.
I am not claiming that the US WAS unprepared for that reason, only that Condoleeza Rice made that claim, which I can back up with proof, if required. StuRat 02:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
The only claim that is interesting in this article is the FACTUAL claim. The fact Condoleeza Rice said this, if meant for any other reason than to support that claim, is utterly irrelevant to this article: I'll wager a fiver that Condoleeza Rice was not commenting on the relative virtues of direct versus representative democracy. Would I be right she was simply making a politically motivated (and not especially plausible) excuse a government screw-up, and that representative democracy was nowhere in her contemplation at the time? If so, what has her quotation got to do with this article? ElectricRay 09:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
It is interesting in that a major governmental official has argued that the transition from one administration to another caused major problems, which is the central claim of this bullet point. Whether she is in support or opposed to this bullet being used as an argument for or against direct deomocracy is irrelevant. This is an excellent example of the claim that representative democracy causes disruption between election cycles, and should thus be included. If you think she was lying as to this being a significant factor, you are welcome to your opinion, but that does not change the fact that the claim was made, which is what I've reported. If you have a counter-claim by another gov official that "no gov disruption occurs as a result of administration changes", then please include that, as well. StuRat 01:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
The statement that representatives "tend to be" more male than female (or more white than black, more tall than short, more Muslim than Hindu, more Christian than atheist, or more fat than thin etc etc) doesn't advance that basic proposition, and implies some sort of inherent inequality between the chances of males and females holding office which is simply not verifiable (there are any number of possible reasons, some entirely innocent, that fewer women might "tend to be" in parliament - again, none are verifiable).
Nothing was implied regarding the reason for the male tendency, only the existence of this tendency, which can be backed up with proof, if necessary. StuRat 02:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
all right, that interpretation is likely to be inferred then. And why mention that, rather than christians v atheists, or tall v short etc? how does it actually advance your main proposition, that representative government cannot be representative? ElectricRay 09:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I really don't get your argument at all here. Are you saying all details should be left out whenever possible ? For what reason ? Why is a vaguely worded phrase ("It's not representative, but we're not going to tell you how") better than one that lists all the specific ways in which it is nonrepresentative ? If reps tend to be more religous and taller than the constituency, I am fine with including that info, too, I just did not know those to be facts, so didn't include them. StuRat 01:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Not only is it not necessarily the case that any disparity that does exist has some perjorative reasoning behind it, it is not necessarily the case that the imbalance is necessarily in favour of men. Take New Zealand (my country of birth, as it happens) for example: there was a point recently where the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, Attorney General, Solicitor General, Governor General, Chief Justice and Chief District Court Judge - seven of the eight top political posts in the country, were all held by women (and currently it is six of those eight, I believe). in that case is it so meaningful that the majority of elected representatives were men (I have no idea whether this is the case, but suppose it probably was)?
This is an encycopaedia. It deals with dispassionate facts. The parts I cut out didn't look to me like dispassionate facts. Your posting on this page has not changed my view. Such statements wouldn't be included in the Brittannica without source. Wikipedia's standards should be no different.
If you challenge the truthfulness of any specific claim, let me know, and I will find proof or retract it. However, please be reasonable and don't ask me to prove every little thing, only those things which you personally suspect are false. I have no desire to do 10 hours of research to prove every 1 hours worth of writting I do. I doubt if you would like to have your productivity so lowered, either. StuRat 02:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
sigh - I'm afraid you are totally misunderstanding what the point of an encylopaedia is. As an encyclopaedia editor, you are meant to be reporting credible information that already exists in the world, not holding forth your own opinions (no original research, remember?). If there is such credible information, cite it - that is what the Encyclopaedia is for - as a starting point to research, to point to just that source of information. If you can't cite, or can't be bothered to cite, don't write. If I am researching on direct democracy, I want to know I can rely on the entry. If all I have to go on is StuRat's unattributed view, I might as well just ask the bloke next to me on the train - the Encyclopaedia is no better source. Wikipedia ought to aspire to being better than that.
Now, I can't be bothered with an editing war, so have it your way, but please consider in your own mind whether your arguments amount to anything more than your own original research: that is, have any of them actually been made publicly by notable sources as direct comments on the shortfalls of representative democracy and/or benefits of direct democracy? If they have, then that's great, but for goodness' sake include the citation! ElectricRay 09:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
The Condi Rice statement is a good case of one of the central tenets being made publicly by a notable source. The other material has also been made publicly. Again, obvious things like most representatives being male, should not require proof, any more than the name of the North Star being Polaris should require proof, unless you have some reason to believe this to be false. StuRat 20:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Incidentally, I think your edits of the "Arguments against..." section were similarly heavy-handed (although some cleanup was needed). However, since I didn't write that section, I won't spend too much time and energy defending it. StuRat 20:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
As long as people have that attitude (and I confess you're by no means alone in it), Wikipedia will resemble not so much an Encyclopaedia as a glorified homework assignment. That's a pity. No matter. ElectricRay 23:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
To which attitude are you referring ?
Also, the goal here should be to improve articles, not to have perfect articles. Is an article which lists specific bullets and examples of each argument in favor of direct democracy better than one without such info ? Yes. Could it be improved upon by adding exhaustive lists of references and studies on the demographics of representatives ? Perhaps. Am I willing to do that work ? No. Are you willing to do it ? Probably not. StuRat 01:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Which attitude? Yours. My aim WAS to improve the article, by taking out speculative nonsense from it. You have not addressed any of the points I have raised. It is clear from your own comments on this page that this the material is all your own research (for example, extrapolating a completely irrelevant quote from Condoleeza Rice and applying it to an unrelated debate about forms of government - that was your idea, wasn't it?). Your own research is not valid content for wikipedia - do you not understand that? If you're not willing to do the work in sourcing your writing to someone notable, then take out the unsourced material. That's all I am asking. I didn't remove any of the substantive points you had made, just the unconvincing original research you used in supporting them. ElectricRay 10:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, obviously you're talking about my attitude. I do have more than one, you know. Here are some of the things you may have been referrring to:
  • My opinion that including as much detail, and as many specific examples as possible, is a good thing.
  • My opinion that a person may support one bullet point without necesarily supporting the overall thesis. For example, someone opposed to the war in Iraq might very well quote an expert who claims there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It is not necessary that the expert be opposed to the war in Iraq. Ideally, they would have no opinion on the matter, for the most unbiased testimony.
  • My opinion that obvious facts need not be proven, unless someone disputes them.
StuRat 15:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

ORIGINAL RESEARCH HAS NO PLACE ON WIKIPEDIA. Capisce? ElectricRay 15:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

And adding examples is not necessarily original research. Say I'm editing an article on multiplication and add an example of 2x5 = 10. Is this "original research" unless I can find authoritive source to back up the claim ? This is quite similar to the claim that most representatives are male. Both are so blatantly obvious as to not require sourcing. StuRat 16:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


  • give me strength. Mathematics is a closed logical system. the statement 2X5=10 is a logical necessity. It is not susceptible to disproof. The statement about the composition of elected houses of representatives are nothing of the sort. IT IS ORIGINAL RESEARCH - ISN'T IT! ElectricRay 17:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
According to your logic we shouldn't take your word for it that it's a "logical necessity" until you can quote an authority and properly source it. Otherwise, we should assume that statement to be ORIGINAL RESEARCH. StuRat 17:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
You still doubt that the majority of elected representatives are male ? Here is a list of US Senators. Count them for yourself:
US Senators
I come up with about 84% male. StuRat
and that's caused by representative government is it? rather than correlated with it? How, exactly? (you must answer without indulging in your own research) ElectricRay 23:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
How on Earth does it matter what causes the bias toward male reps ? All that matters is that it exists. Thus it is an example of how representative democracy is not demographically representative of the population. If the cause mattered, I would say it is a remnant of a patriarchal society. Perhaps the few matriarchal societies would have more female reps, but then that would still be norepresentative. Only societies with a male/female ratio of reps which closely parallels the general population could claim to be representative with respect to gender. StuRat 07:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
If this is a *criticism* of representative government, don't you need to explain the basis for your criticism? Just stating the bare fact "there tend to be more men than women" isn't, of itself, a criticism is it? ("Bias" is a loaded term, by the way.) It could be caused by any number of factors, some totally benign. You have implied a whole string of premises which you haven't stated, and since you haven't stated, let alone justified, them, then all of them must be original research. I note also you have abandoned trying to justify the ridiculous condoleeza rice assertion as anything other than original research, so perhaps you could at least delete that. ElectricRay 10:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
No, I haven't abandoned it, you stopped talking about ir, so I did too. And yes, "there tend to be more men than women" (as compared with the general population), is, in itself, a criticism of representative democracy, in that it shows a failure in one of it's primary claims, that is, to be "representative". StuRat 15:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Leaving it up to you

StuRat, I am tired of this conversation. Have it your way, but for the record, you appear to have fundamentally misunderstood the official Wikipedia policy of "no original research". Perhaps you should take the trouble to read it. No Original Research. "The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation"." ElectricRay 22:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Direct vs. Pure

What do you guys think --is a "direct democracy" exactly the same as a "pure democracy"? The Founding Fathers of the U.S. often spoke against "pure democracy." I created the article pure democracy and I'm wondering if it should be merged with this one. RJII 05:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Not the same. "Pure democracy" isn't a scholarly term, so the comparison is illogical in the first place. "Pure democracy" is merely "democracy" preceded by an adjective, and that is undeserving of an article. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 07:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Further, it makes a lot more sense to redirect pure democracy to Athenian democracy, which is an approximation of the made-up concept of pure democracy. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 07:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. "Pure democracy" is in the dictionary. But, "direct democracy" is not. Merriam-Webster defines "pure democracy" as "democracy in which the power is exercised directly by the people rather than through representatives" [1] 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." [2] And, again, no entry for "direct democracy." And, this source here says they're the same thing [3] This source uses the terms interchangeably: [4], as do many others. RJII 09:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC) RJII 09:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC) (Sorry, but I found this stuff out after I asked the question to you guys.) RJII 09:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC) And, just to rub it in: "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)
This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. "Pure democracy" is not a scholarly equivalent to "direct democracy". Period. If you want to proceed with an edit war, so be it. I will fight for the truth. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 20:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] stevietheman deleting sourced information

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" [5] 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." [6] And, there is entry for "direct democracy" in those dictionaries. And, this source here says they're the same thing [7] This source uses the terms interchangeably: [8], 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)

I explained my position in Talk: Democracy. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 20:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
And you said there that "pure democracy" is used to denigrate democracy. But, that's not true. 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)

[edit] Venezuela

This article on Direct Democracy claims that Switzerland is the best example, however, I would strongly disagree and posit that presently Venezuela is practicing the most participatory and direct democracy in the world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.137.248.185 (talk • contribs) .

I'm sorry but I don't see your point, under the current administration there have been reported a high number of abuses to personal liberties and personal property. When I envision Direct Democracy I don't envision the need for a strong central figure or party leading the way.

Jlausa 19:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)JLAUSAJlausa 19:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

In Venezuela there are communal councils that have been established at the municipal level with control over the allocation of money and resources, councils that can make executive decisions when at least 20% of the community's residents are present. This has been one of Chavez's latest political reforms, I would say that is more direct than what is practiced in Switzerland! (Canadianpunk77 21:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC))

These communal councils have not control about any money or resources - the money is controlled by the national government, who can give money to the projects proposed by the councils - these means that the central government have the last word, not the coucils--194.65.151.249 12:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
You have a point, but I have added a note in the examples section to reflect the fact that Venezuela seems to be moving in that direction. It is a moot point whether their experiments are successful, as provisions for direct democracy have only been enacted after the 1999 constitution. Communal councils are not the only expression of direct democracy there: if we follow the three pillars in the introduction, we will find that the country does practise regularly recalls, popular initiative is widespread and referenda are conducted with foreign accreditation in an almost yearly basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.61.88.19 (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Communal councils are first pre-approved by central state. Government have passed several critical laws without consulting the people (eg: Ley Resorte), and has banned 50-year-old TV channel RCTV for not promoting socialism. The only consultations that have been made in the form of referendum have been constitutional changes. There's a high percentage of Venezuelan citizens who don't trust the electoral council. Freedom indexes for Venezuela are very low. Sources: El Universal (translated), Protest over closure of RCTV, List_of_indices_of_freedom, RCTV and freedom of speech in Venezuela. Venezuela should be removed from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.16.66.35 (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minority Rights

Should there be something in this article about minority rights- maybe along with demagoguery. I would have thought that one of the big dangers in a society where every issue was decided by the whole populace would be that minorities could be easliy have their needs ignored, or indeed be persecuted if they became unpopular. Imagine what would happen to gays in conservative US states if all decisions were made by majority voting.

[edit] External links pruning

Just wanted to drop a line as to why I pruned the link list. I did it basically because the list was getting out of hand with polemical, vanity, "under construction" and unrelated links. Political articles in the Wikipedia seem to be picking up a good deal of this link cruft, and so, necessarily, they need to be pruned periodically. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 14:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Modern Direct Democracy

Folks, I would like to add a section on the History of Modern Direct Democracy - just a short paragraph or three. Please let me know if you think it is inappropriate or should go somewhere else.

It would briefly explain why the framers of the United States Constitution thought the way they did about direct democracy and how this changed in Britain.

Basically the framers echoed the sentiments of early 1700 Whig thinkers - the Rockinghams (from which the American Republicans drew much support). Their ideas (that the sentiments of the mob could not be trusted) were later challenged by other Whig factions (politicians more akin to Shelburne and Pitt, the younger).

The idea of voters actually petitioning their MPs and government into action was quite new in the eighteenth-century. Its roots can be traced back to Ireland's 1769 Octennial Bill. (BTW, Ireland’s parliament was still overseen by a British Viceroy at that stage). This reform towards more direct democracy ushered in a new relationship between MPs and the electorate, and redefined representative democracy as we now know it. A decade on and this kind democracy was more common-place. The 1784 Westminster elections were a classic example of what was to come (i.e. much greater political competition) which defined the era of William Pitt, The Younger.

(Basically, the framers of the United States Constitution were actually a little behind the times in the 1770/80's. They were, in my opinion, sticking more to the faction of Whigs which had previously given them the most support.)

- Eltharian Talk 30 August 2006

[edit] NPOV Anyone?

This article seems to be a bunch of people arguing.

Obviously this has been discussed before, but this article does not seem very NPOV to me. There are far more points in favor of ~ than against, and let's face it, that's not because there really are more points in favor. Some of them are pretty fishy too -- especially the Government Transition and Patronage & Nepotism sections. I'm not sure you could really demonstrate, for instance, that the United States would have been better prepared for terrorist attacks or hurricanes under direct democracy. You would have to somehow demonstrate that the voters are truly capable of picking responsible people to head national security and emergency management. This would be little different than choosing a president. Once those people were in charge of their executive departments, they could choose their underlings just as the U.S. President does now.

In my experience, the best public servants tend to be those somewhere at the mid-level of importance. The positions that are important go to people who will impress a politician's base (and often go too far to the right or left to do so). Those that are unimportant go to people who are basically inept, but who are friends of the appointer, since they can do basically no harm. Those in the middle tend to be the ones that never really meet the public eye, but are nonetheless given important responsibilities. They tend to be truly competent and generally non-controversial, since that makes it easier for them to get through the confirmation process.

In any case, I think that most rational people would agree that true direct democracy (where there is no leader, no parliament, etc.) is really not feasable in a country as large as the U.S. anyway. Phil Bastian 19:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, parts of this article are turning into a bit of a forum debate, especially since both the arguments sections were completely unsourced. That is why I have moved the arguments sections to http://wikireason.net/wiki/Direct_democracy which is set up for that sort of thing.Me...™ 22:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
except User:StuRat has just reverted that. I still think that the arguments sections do not belong in an encyclopedia, especially since they don't have any references and are competely POV.Me...™ 23:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the arguments sections of this article don't belong in an encyclopedia

They are completely unsourced and have alot of POV. On the other hand, there is a perfectly good place for that sort of thing http://wikireason.org/wiki/Direct_democracy . I had moved it all there, but someone reverted it. I don't want to start an edit war, I just think these sections detract from the article.Me...™ 23:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Direct democracy and anarchism

There's no mention in this article of anarchists' use of direct democracy, in Republican Spain during the Civil War for example, or in anarchistic organizations like the IWW and SAC. The Spanish example is particularly relevant to this article because direct democracy was used during that conflict to govern relatively large territories. Political and economic decisions were taken in community assemblies at the local level, and conveyed to higher coordinating bodies by delegates with binding mandates. Similar forms of direct-democratic decision-making are central to a number of left-wing movements, including parecon and council communism. I'm thinking about adding something about this to the article, but I though I'd mention it here first to see what others think - there seems to be some disagreement on this Talk page about what constitutes direct democracy. -Steve

[edit] New constitution for Canada?

According to the current version, Canada used a citizens' assembly to come up with a new constitution. This doesn't sound right at all. British Columbia, one of the provinces of Canada, had a citizens' assembly to come up with a new system for electing representatives. It wasn't a constitutional convention, and the assembly was only making recommendations for BC, not all of Canada. If there is no disagreement I'll change this within the next couple of days. -Steve

[edit] Arguments For

Uhh, it looks like someone went through the "arguments for" section and put in counterpoints for almost all of them.. Shouldn't they just stick those in the "arguments against" section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.187.3.92 (talk) 02:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

The "arguments against" section now has that problem. 76.90.49.187 (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the "Arguments for" section actually contains arguments against representative democracy. The section should be revised to make them arguments supporting direct democracy. For example, change "Lack of transparency" to "Greater transparency", etc.

LK (t|c) 21:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Socialist Party

According to the party platform at http://sp-usa.org/platform/civilrights.html, the Socialist Party supports proportional representation not direct democracy. Therefore I am removing that reference. -- B Levin

[edit] suboptimality

"Majority rule may lead to quite different results if one votes separately on several single issues or if one puts these issues together and votes once on the corresponding bundles of alternatives. Voting on each issue separately may thus lead to suboptimal results, which nobody really wants. This is a rather strong argument against the indiscriminate use of referenda on single issues and for the bundling of issues by political parties."

I don't get it. A.Z. 03:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Neither do I. I get that the results might be different, but I don't see how that would lead to less than optimal results more often than with other systems. -Father Inire 07:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I feel the same way. I'll be bold and remove the whole thing. A.Z. 03:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the passage was to short. Therefore the whole argument from the article "majority rule" is reproduced here:

Majority rule may lead to quite different results if one votes separately on several single issues or if one puts these same issues together and votes only once on the corresponding bundles of alternatives.

A simplified example may demonstrate this.

Suppose there are 3 voters, A, B and C, who have to decide 3 issues each with 2 alternatives: s or t, v or w, and x or y.

When a certain alternative is collectively chosen, voters are assumed either get a certain additional quantity of hours of leisure or their hours of leisure are reduced by a certain quantity. It is further assumed that each voter prefers more hours of leisure to less.

The 6 alternatives and the corresponding outcomes for the voters are given in the tables below:


A B C
s: 0 0 0
t: 1 1 -3


A B C
v: 0 0 0
w: 1 -3 1


A B C
x: 0 0 0
y: -3 1 1


From the tables you can see that for A and B alternative t is better than s, that for A and C alternative w is better than v, and that for B and C alternative y is better than x. Therefore t, w and y are the majority alternatives and thus the collective choice.

Now we put the 3 issues together. We get bundles of 3 alternatives each, for instance t+w+y and s+v+x, on which to vote. The bundles correspond to the following outcomes for the voters, consisting in hours of leisure (or quantities of any other good):


A B C
s+v+x: 0 0 0
t+w+y: -1 -1 -1


The table shows that now a majority prefers s+v+x to t+w+y. This result is quite the opposite of the former results gained by voting separately on each issue.

The bundle s+v+x now is preferred not only by a majority of voters but is even unanimously preferred by all the voters.

This means that s+v+x is superior to t+w+y according to the Pareto criterion.

Voting on each issue separately may thus lead to suboptimal results.

This is a rather strong argument against "direct democracy" and the indiscriminate use of referenda on single issues.

If this argument is sound the removing of the text should be corrected.Eberhard Wesche 10:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't read the argument yet, but, if the text is to be restored, the argument should definitely be included in the article as well, or else we'll just be asking for people to trust us that the information is true, and it will be unverifiable, and people won't be able to reach their own conclusions. A.Z. 21:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Got it, thanks for posting the explanation. It didn't occur to me to click on the link to the majority rule article - oops! It does seem like a strong argument against indiscriminate use of referenda. The explanation is pretty long, though, so I just restored it as is, and I'll put in a reference to the full argument being on the majority rule page. -Father Inire 23:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I changed the wording a bit after all, but I think the original meaning is there. I also added the reference to the full argument being on the majority rule page, and changed "referenda" to "referendums", which is the preferred plural used throughout the article. -Father Inire 00:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UK democracy - Isle of St. Kilda

A pure form of democracy existed in the UK on the Scottish Isle of St Kilda (an outlier off the west coast). Each morning the entire male population of the island would gather in the main street, and would vote on every issue that needed deciding. Every majority decision was binding.

The islanders also held almost all there assets in joint possession. I'm not an expert in any of these matter, but I think it's a point of interest that this unusul system existed in the UK up until just 50 years ago.

L Green

[edit] Open institution democracy

A new form of democracy was proposed and publicly debated this month (August 2007). Two institutions were proposed: 1) open electoral system; and 2) open legislature. For details and references, see: Talk:Participatory_democracy#Open_institution_democracy.

I am wondering, should we describe this on Wikipedia? And where, exactly? --Michael Allan 15:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remunerating representatives

From the article: "The interests of elected representatives do not necessarily correspond with those of their constituents. An example is that representatives often get to vote to determine their own salaries. It is in their interest that the salaries be high, while it is in the interest of the electorate that they be as low as possible, since they are funded with tax revenue." (emphasis mine)

OK, of course I don't disagree with the idea that politicians can develop interests that are at odds with those of their constituents, but I don't think the way the example is phrased is NPOV. The statement that the people's interests are always best served by conserving tax revenue as much as possible, and good government can be had at rock-bottom prices, sounds like some particularly radical libertarianism. Paying politicians the least possible amount ($8 an hour in my province) would arguably cause massive corruption (taking bribes to pay the rent, for example) or total domination of the government by the very wealthy - neither of which would be in the people's interest. I do see the conflict of interest in allowing politicians to set their own salaries, but I think it needs to be phrased a little differently. And there might be better examples too, and examples of how different mechanisms of direct democracy address these self-interested acts by representatives. -Father Inire 14:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Haiti, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Venzuela

I deleted these countries from the "Contemporary Movements" section because the links given (to other wikipedia articles) don't support the claim that that the governments of Bolivia, Ecuador, Haiti and Venezuela are fighting for direct democracy as such. The president of Venezuela has indicated he would like to make Venezuelan democracy more participatory, but this hardly counts as "direct democratic praxis". It's conventional electoral politics. -Father Inire 18:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't the Communal Councils of Venezuela, comprised of citizens from municipalities with power over the allocation of resources count as direct democracy? And what about the Juntas of Good government or Autonomous Municipalities of the EZLN (Zapatista National Liberation Army) in Chiapas, Mexico? They also directly involve citizens in decision making. I will do more research in these two areas when time permits, but I think what is being experimented with in Venezuela and Chiapas could be labelled as direct democracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.85.176 (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Zapatista autonomous municipalities are examples of governance by direct democracy, which is why I didn't delete that item along with the more recent additions. I think it's too early to count the communal councils of Venezuela as an example of or a movement for direct democracy, but I'd be interested in seeing more information on the subject. I found this article pretty interesting: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2257 -Father Inire 02:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ambiguity - Representative Direct Democracy

The article states; "These two forms of democracy can be combined into representative direct democracy, where elected representatives vote on the behalf of citizens, as long as they do not choose to vote themselves." To whom does this "they" refer? The citizens or the representatives?Jdhenry 03:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Athens?

So, let me see. Direct democracy = people voting = ekklisia tou dimou(εκκλησία του δήμου) = Ancient Athenian Democracy. Why does ancient Greece, the inventor of direct democracy, is not even mentioned in the article?

Someone PLEASE answer me.

Athens is in fact mentioned in the article, with a link to the main article on Athenian democracy. -Father Inire (talk) 01:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Em... is one sentence enough? I mean the best and oldest example of direct democracy was in ancient Athens, please correct if I am wrong. At the moment I am re-organizing the History of democracy starting from antiquity, so so so.. I could add some lines about it, something similar with Direct democracy in Switzerland.A.Cython (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)