Talk:Democracy/Archive 10

message: I don't suppose there's to be much discussion about alternative forms of democracy that could possibly exist, is there?  For example, a system where the basis of lawmaking is the referendum, or where it is the courts that are elected and not the Party members, or where there are no parties?  These systems must have been discussed at some point in time, and certainly on the internet.
:They might have been discussed, but good luck finding one in reality. If you think about it, alternative democracies in themselves are pretty recent concepts, and since people tend to work with "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," we probably won't be seeing one for a very long time.Robinson0120 22:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative forms of democracy

message: There is a huge problem with this article which seems to boil down to a question of whether the history is seen as:
# the develop of a system which had various names at the time but which is now generally accepted as being democracy.
# the development of the concept of democracy which has over its history been applied to various terms.
The type of problems this is causing are:
* the idea that America was set up as a Democracy. It was not, it is quite clearly a "republic" and I've found no comment by the founding fathers to suggest otherwise. The interpretation of this event as being the founding of a democracy is a very recent phenonema and to suggest otherwise is quite misleading.
* The idea that Greek democracy was election. When I first found this article, whenever greek democracy was mentioned it was implied that it was elected (by default). Unfortunately, if it was elected, the Greeks would have said it was undemocratic, because the Athenians thought elections were oligarchic!
* 18th/19th century, democracy was equated with left-wing socialism. Elections were one of several means to a "democratic" system (ie. socialist)
Obviously the subject is highly contentious, but that should not get in the way of historical fact (afterall you can't rewrite the fact that the communists thought their system was democratic!) I think it really needs the history to be split into two: "History: The concept of Democracy" (those systems that have been called democratic) to contrast with "History: the system of Democracy" (the system that Americans call democratic, although it was not called democracy at the time!)
--Mike 16:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, the distinction between democracy and republic then and now is discussed in a section of its own. Obviously, Wikipedia mainly deals with the current definition of words. For example, the article about evolution does not describe the views on this one hundred years ago, but mainly the current views.Ultramarine 16:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The section on a republic is a good start, but it misses the whole 18th/19th century idea of social democracy, it fails to highlight the very different meaning in Ancient Greece, and it fails to mention the 20th century split between East (social democracy) and West (elections). Of course the article should mainly focus on the current use, but is it really the place of Wikipedia to rewrite American history and suggest that the US was set up as a democracy (the founding fathers will be rolling in their graves!) If you are serious about only using the definition currently in vogue, I think it is hard to justify having the Greek Democratic system in this article as it does not fit that definition! You can't have it both ways, either it is a full article covering the history of democracy which must explain how the term has been applied to systems that are very different to the majority use today OR you stick to the modern definition and e.g. remove references to systems that are not democratic under your definition such as Greek democracy and the 18/19th century social democrats! --Mike 19:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Evolution of political system vs. Evolution of concept

message: ===Introduction Marxist & Greek Democracy ===
The introduction is unbalanced. It focusses solely on liberal democracy and ignores contradictory views of democracy both the Greek idea of allotment (random selection is not an equal voice) and the marxist view that socialism is inherently democratic (again nothing to do with equal voice).
is a form of government for a nation state, or for an organization in which all the citizens have a voice in shaping policy 
This clearly isn't an adequate all encompassing definition. My own personal view is that all forms of democracy are grouped by a belief in isonomia (equality of political rights), which covers greek, liberal and marxist views. I think we can safely say that Liberal democracy is the most common view, but it clearly is sharply at odds with the Marxist view and if I understand Wikipedia policy correctly the opening paragraph can't solely reflect one side of the debate!
So, I would like to change this sentence for one of the following:
#is a form of government for a nation state, or for an organization based on an equality of political rights 
#is a form of government for a nation state, or for an organization based on an equality of political rights interpreted in a liberal democracy as an equal voice or vote in shaping policy although contradictory views exist. 
#is a form of government for a nation state, or for an organization. Liberal democracy is based on an eqaul voice or vote; however other views contradict the Liberal Democratic view of democracy notably the Marxist & Ancient Greek view of democracy 
#is a form of government for a nation state, or for an organization
====marxist view====
I noticed someone simply removed someone else's contribution without putting comments on the talk page. To my mind that is simply rude, arrogant and undemocratic (based on liberal democratic interpretation, and I don't know anything about the marxists concept of rudeness?)!
Most liberal democracies are only considered as such because the citizens are allowed the token participatory act of voting, which has no effect in causing the system to reflect the will of the people. 
I'm sticking the comments here so that it can be discussed. If there is no agreement how to make then introction cover all interpretations then my view is that Wikipedia policy would require us to simply allow the other side to state there view! (or is that not democracy?)--Mike 10:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no agreed on definition of democracy, only many different views. However, I do not see why allotment cannot be seen as giving an an voice in shaping policy. Alternatively, we could remove the sentence in the intro completely and instead simply just state that there are many different views without trying to give a single "true" definition.Ultramarine 13:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article mentins numerous form of democracy, many not including elections. The article in no place states the democracy only means elections.Ultramarine 15:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Introduction" section

message: The introduction is unbalanced. It focusses solely on liberal democracy and ignores contradictory views of democracy both the Greek idea of allotment (random selection is not an equal voice) and the marxist view that socialism is inherently democratic (again nothing to do with equal voice).
is a form of government for a nation state, or for an organization in which all the citizens have a voice in shaping policy 
This clearly isn't an adequate all encompassing definition. My own personal view is that all forms of democracy are grouped by a belief in isonomia (equality of political rights), which covers greek, liberal and marxist views. I think we can safely say that Liberal democracy is the most common view, but it clearly is sharply at odds with the Marxist view and if I understand Wikipedia policy correctly the opening paragraph can't solely reflect one side of the debate!
So, I would like to change this sentence for one of the following:
#is a form of government for a nation state, or for an organization based on an equality of political rights 
#is a form of government for a nation state, or for an organization based on an equality of political rights interpreted in a liberal democracy as an equal voice or vote in shaping policy although contradictory views exist. 
#is a form of government for a nation state, or for an organization. Liberal democracy is based on an eqaul voice or vote; however other views contradict the Liberal Democratic view of democracy notably the Marxist & Ancient Greek view of democracy 
#is a form of government for a nation state, or for an organization
====marxist view====
I noticed someone simply removed someone else's contribution without putting comments on the talk page. To my mind that is simply rude, arrogant and undemocratic (based on liberal democratic interpretation, and I don't know anything about the marxists concept of rudeness?)!
Most liberal democracies are only considered as such because the citizens are allowed the token participatory act of voting, which has no effect in causing the system to reflect the will of the people. 
I'm sticking the comments here so that it can be discussed. If there is no agreement how to make then introction cover all interpretations then my view is that Wikipedia policy would require us to simply allow the other side to state there view! (or is that not democracy?)--Mike 10:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction Marxist & Greek Democracy 

message: I noticed someone simply removed someone else's contribution without putting comments on the talk page. To my mind that is simply rude, arrogant and undemocratic (based on liberal democratic interpretation, and I don't know anything about the marxists concept of rudeness?)!
Most liberal democracies are only considered as such because the citizens are allowed the token participatory act of voting, which has no effect in causing the system to reflect the will of the people. 
I'm sticking the comments here so that it can be discussed. If there is no agreement how to make then introction cover all interpretations then my view is that Wikipedia policy would require us to simply allow the other side to state there view! (or is that not democracy?)--Mike 10:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: marxist view

message: Before anyone makes any assumption about Greek democracy being "elected" and biases the whole article perhaps they should read the following:
“it is thought to be democratic for the offices to be assigned by lot, for them to be elected is oligarchic,” 	[Aristotle, Politics 4.1294b]
“Democracy is a form of government in which the offices are distributed by the people among themselves by lot;” 	[Aristotle, Rhetoric]
“In establishing all these offices, we must make the appointments partly by election and partly by lot, mingling democratic with non-democratic methods,” 	[Plato, Laws 6:759]
“And a democracy, I suppose, comes into being when the poor, winning the victory, put to death some of the other party, drive out others, and grant the rest of the citizens an equal share in both citizenship and offices--and for the most part these offices are assigned by lot.”	[Plato, Republic 8.557
As written the introduction stated that democracy was an equal vote or voice and therefore implied that Greek democracy was undemocratic.
I didn't want to start with a "it could mean this or could mean that" paragraph in such a article, but neither could I accept that you can start an article on democracy that implies the Greeks were undemocratic! To keep the flow I've used the linking concept of "isonomia" (equality of political rights/law) which the Greeks used interchangeably with democratia. As written it only said "equal votes or equal voice". Allotment is not a system of "equal voice", since only those who are selected have a right to sit in government, so I had to add the comment on Greek democracy. 
I've checked the OED and the term democracy both covers Greek democracy and modern democracy, so I think the article must either embrace both ancient and modern or  alternatively there might be two 1. Greek democracy (selected by lot), 2. Modern democracy (elected)--Mike 10:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no agreed on definition of democracy, only many different views. However, I do not see why allotment cannot be seen as giving an an voice in shaping policy. Alternatively, we could remove the sentence in the intro completely and instead simply just state that there are many different views without trying to give a single "true" definition.Ultramarine 13:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article mentins numerous form of democracy, many not including elections. The article in no place states the democracy only means elections.Ultramarine 15:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Greek view

message: "Though there remains some philosophical debate as to the applicability and legitimacy of criteria in defining democracy what follows may be a minimum of requirements for a state to be considered democratic (note that for example anarchists may support a form of democracy but not a state): 
# A demos—a group which makes political decisions by some form of collective procedure—must exist. Non-members of the demos do not participate. In modern democracies the demos is the adult portion of the nation, and adult citizenship is usually equivalent to membership.
# A territory must be present, where the decisions apply, and where the demos is resident. In modern democracies, the territory is the nation-state, and since this corresponds (in theory) with the homeland of the nation, the demos and the reach of the democratic process neatly coincide. Colonies of democracies are not considered democratic by themselves, if they are governed from the colonial motherland: demos and territory do not coincide.
# A decision-making procedure exists, which is either direct, in instances such as a referendum, or indirect, of which instances include the election of a parliament.
# The procedure is regarded as legitimate by the demos, implying that its outcome will be accepted. Political legitimacy is the willingness of the population to accept decisions of the state, its government and courts, which go against personal choices or interests.
# The procedure is effective in the minimal sense that it can be used to change the government, assuming there is sufficient support for that change. Showcase elections, pre-arranged to re-elect the existing regime, are not democratic.
# In the case of nation-states, the state must be sovereign: democratic elections are pointless if an outside authority can overrule the result."
::Much of this section seems to be a discussion of the characteristics of states, not democracy. All states, democratic or not, must have a terriotory, be sovereign, have citizens, have a decision-making procedure, and be able to enforce decisions in its territory. As such, I think that it should be removed or remade.Ultramarine 00:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The democratic state" section 

message: Democracy is a form of government. There are many different forms and the methods used to govern differ.  While the term democracy is often used in the context of a political state, the principles are also applicable to other areas of governance.
:This is completely uninformative. You could use the same "definition" for Monarchy or Oligarchy. --Drono 05:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest proposal 

message: Direct democracy is a political system where the people vote on government decisions, such as questions of whether to approve or reject various laws. It is called direct because the power of making decisions is exercised by the people directly, without intermediaries or representatives. Historically, this form of government has been rare because of the difficulties of getting all the people of a certain territory in one place for the purpose of voting. All direct democracies to date have been relatively small communities; usually city-states. The most notable was the ancient Athenian democracy. Today, direct democracy is existing in countries such as Switzerland, where certain cantons practice it in its literal form, and in other countries, typically those where there is also referendum.
"Modern direct democracy...  is characterised by three pillars; referendums...  initiatives... and recall elections (on holders of public office)."
The last of the three is exactly NOT direct democracy.  It is representative democracy.  This should be obvious.  - Pepper 150.203.227.130 10:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Direct

message: As written this section implies quite falsely that America was set up as a democracy. This is a lie and ought to be corrected post haste! None of the founding fathers were in favour of a democracy (based on Greece), America was set up as a republic (based on Rome). I don't know why there is this modern attempt to rewrite American history to imply it was set up as a democracy when the founding fathers were in fact universally hostile to the idea of democracy! --Mike 15:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go further and remove the "with relatively wide suffrage". It's a phrase that really means nothing. 147.10.143.23 13:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: the 18th and 19th centuries" history section

message: Republic, Republicanism, and Republicanism in the United States give many different meanings to the terms, sometimes contradictory, for example excluding or including a monarch. The article already explains the historical difference between republic = constitutional representative democracy and democracy = direct demcoracy. The current text in the "Democracy and Republicanism" is very unclear regarding what meanings of republicanism and democracy are discussed and how they differ. It also gives undue weight to the United States for a general democracy article. The meaning of repulicanism is already well covered in the three articles mentioned. So I suggest changing the title to "Constitutional monarchs and upper chambers" and the text to
"Initially after the American and Frenc revolutions the question was open whether democracies, in order to restrain unchecked majority rule, should have an elitist upper chamber, the members perhaps appointed meritorious experts or having lifetime tenures, or should have a constitutional monarch with limited but real powers. Some countries (as Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Scandinavia and Japan) turned powerful monarchs into constitutional monarchs with limited or, often gradually, merely symbolic roles.  Often the monarchy was abolished along with the aristocratic system (as in the U.S., France, China, Russia, Germany, Austia, Hungary, Italy, Greece and Egypt). In Australia, the monarchy is seen as hollow shell. However, there is no consensus on how to replace it. Most voters want a powerful president (as in the U.S., France, and Russia), while most politicians want to keep the parliamentary system and have only a weak president (as in Italy and Germany). Many nations had elite upper houses of legislatures which often had lifetime tenure, but eventually these senates lost power (as in Britain) or else became elective and remained powerful (as in the United States)."Ultramarine 09:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: better keep the republicanism section. People always get confused about the two. The American model was the first and most influential for 200 years. The French of course were off-and-on regarding a republic, going through 5 of them with intervals of emperors and dictators. Rjensen 09:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am still confused by the current text and what republicanism and democracy is supposed to mean and how they differ. Also note that it gives undue weight to the US, as noted above.Ultramarine 10:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: republicanism requires sovereignty of the people--but how does that translate into decision-making by the people is the issue. The US is the main republican model that adopted democracy in stages, so that theorists and actual practitioners looked at it especially (in countries like China, Japan, Australia, Germany, Italy) ; therefore it has to have heavy weight. calling it "undue" is POV. Rjensen 10:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is one view of republicanism, there are many others. Also, "sovereignty of the people" seems to be the same as the literal meaning of democracy. What is the difference? Ultramarine 10:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: "many others" = what evidence for that claim??? (see the article on the subject). The point about sovereignty is that it is not the king/aristocracy that "owns" the country. Before republicanism they really did own it and did sell or buy or inherit kingdoms. Republicans reject that power.  Rjensen 10:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above articles mention many views: anti-monarchy, pro-rule of law (possibly including a monarch), a virtue system, and so on. You argue for a partcular meaning, "sovereignty of the people", which seems identical to democracy in a broad sense. You may be arguing that democracy means elections, but democracy has been applied to many other political systems, like sortition.Ultramarine 10:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: oh I think "soverignty of the people" pretty well covers all forms of republicanism (see Edmund Morgan on the invention of the people.) But "soverighnty of the people" has not been covered in the democracy article, probably because it is a different concept with a different history, as Pocock has shown (very few of the people covered by Pocock believed in democracy--and "democracy" was a negative term in the US in the 1790s for example, when everyone proclaimed they were "republican' but relatively few claimed to be a "democrat". The Democracy article seems to get the soverignty of Parliament mixed up with democracy in dealing with medieval England. Rjensen 11:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Many of the meanings are not identical with "sovereignty of the people". Regarding the historical use of democracy and repubic it is mentioned in the the "Democracy and Republic" section.Ultramarine 11:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Look for example at Merriam-Webster. It mentions two main meanings for republic. The modern one, "a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president". The old one opposing direct democracy: "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law". No mention of "sovereignty of the people".Ultramarine 11:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the definition of "republic" is something else again--also confused with democracy. I recommend reading Edmund Morgan, Inventing the People: The Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and America (1989) which is very clear (Morgan won the Pulitzer prize this year). Rjensen 12:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Merriam-Webster definition of Republicanism refer to Republic.Ultramarine 12:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed the dictionaries are no help. Look instead at the stanford ency of philosophy:  Rjensen 12:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dictonaries are obviously useful for brief explanations regarding what words mean. Stanford gives yet more views and definitions of republicanism. I suggest discussing these many confusing meanings in the appropriate articles. There is certainly no consensus on what Republicanism is.Ultramarine 12:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The "Democracy and Republicanism" section 

message: The article had a very garbled section on "Republic". I replaced it with the republicanism section that was blanked out some time ago, which explains the concept and discusses some of the relevant history. Rjensen 06:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, there is no consensus on what Republicanism is, see above.Ultramarine 07:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republicanism 

message: (PURELY THEORETICAL)
Notice these facts:
1. Democracy - people (culturological domains) rule themselves the way they see fit.
2. Hegemony - some organisation superimposes and rules over multiple culturological domains.
3. Democracy is an anthonym of hegemony (the sole purpose of existance of that term).
Paradox: according to above written facts, how can for example United States of America, or European Union, or indeed a whole Latin writting (Roman-catholic) domain be democracy? (one organisation superimposes rule over multitude of nations, which by definition implies hegemony, which by logic excludes democracy; further more they are all saying that membership in their hegemony is a matter of free choice, yet, if you pay attention to details you will notice that in some cases they indeed perfidiously force other culturological domains into submission)
(Just commenting on what are facts regardless of mine or anybody else's oppinion.)
::The democracy article neds some quality upgrades. Ultramarine has been citing pocket dictionaries instead of serious scholarship: reliable sources only please. Rjensen 08:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am citing Merriam-Webster, often considered the most important dictionary among writers. Certainly an important view for what words mean. In addition I have cited other sources.Ultramarine 08:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No the pocket dictionary is not good enough for Wikipedia when there are more reliable sources. (It's a tertiary source like another enyclopedia and Wiki rules warn against that). Rjensen 09:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, it is not a pocket dictionary. I cite many different sources, what is usually considered the most important diotionary among writers is an important view regarding what words mean. Wikipedia:Reliable sources accepts tertiary sources, even if a dictionary is a tertiary source, which is questionable.Ultramarine 09:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Facts 

message: Sections that do not have solid reliable sources will be deleted--a democracy after all, has to follow the rules.
:Yes. Pleae explain why you delete sourceds statements, like that democracy is usually considered to be liberal democracy today, and insist on that your own prefered version of what Republicanism is should be stated as the truth when sources show many different views.Ultramarine 09:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Reliable sources states: "When wikipedians have the ambition to write a better encyclopedia entry than those extant, it does not suffice to rely on the content of such tertiary sources. Therefore, in general, as primary sources are also to be treated with caution (see above), secondary sources are the stock material on which Wikipedia articles depend for their references." As for the dictionaries, it is much better to rely on a serious unabridged dictionary, especially the OED, which is MUCH more useful on historical materials, rather than ones intended for college students that downplay historical usage. Rjensen 10:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not avoid answering the questions above, you deleted material using other sources. Regarding dictionaries, it is answered in the section above.Ultramarine 10:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki rule#1 reliable sources only 

message: As requested in the priority one to do list since May 14th 2006 for this article I have taken action to implement on September 29th 2006. Please read, discuss, and keep as the consensus of the group here sees fit. I plan to immediately begin work on the next to do list at priority one. Absolutely no worries at all. Neutralaccounting 03:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no need for this. There are more than 150 nations in the world. I do not think there is room to list all of them. Furthermore, original research and personal opinions should be avoided. For example Freedom House gives a published list of the state of democracy in the world's nations in their report Freedom in the World 2006.Ultramarine 22:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was on the top of To Do list and which was listed as a priority one request!. I took several hours out of my time over two days to fulfill this to do request. If you don't like it, then have the To Do list changed.. Don't waste my time that I have to fulfill priority one requests. Neutralaccounting 22:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed. It would certainly be possible to discuss this but it is very difficult to avoid orginal resarch, personal opinions, edit wars, and even agree on what "democracy" is. For example, some people think that Cuba is democracy according to some particular definition of democracy. Few nations will admit that they are not democratic. The best place to discuss in detail if a nation is democratic or not is probably on pages related to that nation, like Cuba and democracy and Elections in Cuba.Ultramarine 22:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are other priority one requests on other to do lists that require my attention. Neutralaccounting 03:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fulfilled Request

message: Hi, just dropping in and I thought I would mention that the constitutional monarchy section seems to concentrate quite a lot on australia and on hardly anything else. Zoanthrope 18:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitutional Monarchy Section 

message: The criticism tells that some groups are opposed to democracy. But the democracy shuold serve people and nature, I suppose, and the pro-people groups are the left ones. The left is opposed by the profit right, not only the far-right (the fascism). So why it is not allowd to tell that capitalism defeats democracy? When political parties are financed by the commertial ones, when capital interfere between candidates and the people effectively decoupling the demos from the political process, the capital overtakes the real state power. The wealthy minority takes control over the general majority in quite natural way in self-developing process: the business elected itself into power gains more state subsidies and accumulates more resourses allowing to buy more state power on the next election. After several iterations, the big business is indistinguishible from government -- the influence of the pro-people left is completely eliminated. It is also natural that the corporate government sets up the policy to protect the prosperity of the minority from the majority and serve its profit interests, which is acieved by enslaving the society to transfer the public property and wealth produced by people into private capital of dominating elite through big business subsidies and such affairs. The business also increases profits by abridging social programs (cuting wages, public education, heath care, social and environment protection) and investing into anti-social businesses (like military complex, tobaco, ..., marketing and overconsumption), effectively degrading society and nature. That is, profits of few are made by parasitizing on the society, destroying it Welfare for the Wealthy. For these antisocial reasons, the dominating minority interests are directly opposed to general public, which are the culture and nature, I suppose. The bourgeois dictatorship (corporatism, imperialism, fascism, polyarcy -- call it as you like) preveils the modern world. The current system is a polyarchy, at best Chomsky - America is not a Democracy. They use democracy as a veil and excuse to overthow "not democratic" governments all over the world to capture the global weath. The 'democracy' in its current form is a greatest threat to the life existance on the Earth. The bourgeois use propaganda, which pervades their mass communication, to decieve, indoctrinate and manipulate the stupid majority. If the wikipedia is really a free encyclopedia, it must address this most widespread and monstrous lie in the world. --Javalenok 21:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democracy -- the biggest myth of modern times 

message: As far as I'm concerned the only valid form of government is democracy but that doesn't mean that it isn't flawed. One of the things that often bothers me is how qualified or unqualified the people are who are voting. The election campaigns are often executed based on the most primitive issues and often have little realistic political content. This sort of behaviour is encouraged by the fact that many people are not terribly interested and are happy reading newspapers, which live by printing equally primitive headlines. Obviously a selected group of voters is invalid and that would no longer count as a democracy anyway, however there are perhaps ways to encourage a more constructive use of the right to vote. Voting is a privilege and I believe it is perhaps one that we have to earn in part, otherwise the privilege is used carelessly, e.g. "my family has always voted XYZ and that's not going to change now!". Perhaps each voter must fill out a multiple choice test* of say 30 questions that needs to be completed along with the vote. The test would evaluate how qualified the voter is and would be used for weighting his/her vote. This should have the affect that the voter is motivated to know more about what he/she is actually voting for. Since the public would then be more focused on politics, this should carry on to the parties to base their election campaign on politics rather than meaningless personal issues. Furthermore this would force the media to raise their standards and be more constructive otherwise they'd go out of business due to lack of public interest. *Obviously the test needs to be put together by an independent group and must contain questions that were kept secret until the vote.
A further issue I have with democracy is the problem that the party in power is forced to make decisions for short term projects. Anything long term that produces cost in the short term and provides benefits only in the long term is often an unpopular decision. As a result responsible long term projects are often under financed or not approved at all. Instead the governing parties often aim for projects that return suboptimal results in the short term. However perhaps this problem exists primarily due to how fickle and unsure the general public can be, and this is perhaps helped by encouraging people to know more about what their government is trying to do (e.g. with the above idea). 212.48.126.140 13:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This concept was explored in the novel Starship Troopers by Heinlein. Only people who joined the military and successfully completed their training were eligible to vote. Not sure if it falls within the scope of the article for inclusion though. --Zero g 13:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. However the idea is neither about being eligible to vote nor is it based on what institutions the voter has been involved with. It would be a weighting of the vote based on the person's political competence and not if he/she has "done the right things", which would be very questionable indeed.212.48.126.140 15:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further weaknesses 

message: If the people wish to make a decision you find bad, it is also what those people wished, and therefore not a bad decision to them, but what they wanted, and will probably turn out good for them, as they wanted it. As for the people who didn't want that to happen, majority rules. Tough luck. Move if you so wish.
:Was this is a reply to my question? If so, I'll respond by saying that I don't believe in "majority rules." To me, it's a stupid concept. I'll use the argument I used above- is it still "tough luck" and "majority rules" if a black man were to be lynched in a white supremacist community for raping a white woman even if there were no evidence and proof to the contrary that he were not guilty? If casualties like that are part of such a glorious political system, I'd prefer not to adhere to it, and get into a position where more logical values could be expressed and instantiated. Furthermore, democracy is a political system and nothing more. Should the views of the people really matter when it comes to matters of governance? I of course don't hold the answer, but I think (at least at the moment) that the answer is no.Robinson0120 00:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why the U.S. chose a constitutional republic rather than a democracy. A Constitution exists that protects individual liberty. The majority of the people voting cannot change it. The power of the people is checked because all they're allowed to do is elect representatives. And then the power of the representatives is checked is well. A majority of representative can't change the Constitution either, unless it is a super majority which is extremely difficult to achieve. A constitutional republic is "government of laws, not of men" whereas a democracy is a government of men, not of laws. "The people" have little say, as it should be. All Male Action 15:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: All right, I have few problems with a constitutional republic, but quite a few with true democracy, or, really, the majority of it's incarnations. I mean, do the candidates in that republic REALLY need to be elected?Robinson0120 22:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's Their Choice 

message: * I've reverted to an earlier version by Ultramarine before he removed the Marxist/Socialist section. I think the removal of the section was a little too hasty, but some of Ultramarine's other edits seem fine to me. I think we can accomplish a lot by just working on this version. Nixer, the Marxist/Socialist view section is restored, so you should start working on improving it (so it won't get removed again). Ultramarine, I'm going to add a  tag to the section until some of the original research is removed. Hopefully this will keep both sides happy for now. Taxico 07:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It appears that Ultramarine reversed your modifications to try and calm things down. I have restored them. Ultramarine, your contribution to the project is appreciated, but you should try and work with others to reach a consensus, rather than just reverting anything you disagree with and creating problems. ---*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 14:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Taxico's comments are old. See discussion above which has occured after that date.Ultramarine 14:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC comments

message: In many Greek city states, for example Sparta.
:Ancient Greece is mentined. Note that only a minority of the males had the vote.Ultramarine 19:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Representative Democracy existed prior to Rome 

message: Index of Democracy
The Economist has in a study examined the state of democracy in 167 countries and rated the nations with a Economist Intelligence Unit Index of Democracy which focused on five general categories; free and fair election process, civil liberties, functioning of government, political participation and political culture. Sweden scored a total of 9,88 on the scale of ten which was the highest result, North Korea scored the lowest with 1.03. Laza Kekic. "A pause in democracy’s march" (From The World in 2007 print edition)[www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.pdf Economist Intelligence Unit democracy index 2006] (PDF file)
Full democracies: 1. Sweden, 2. Iceland, 3. Netherlands, 4. Norway, 5. Denmark, 6. Finland, 7. Luxembourg, 8. Australia, 9. Canada, 10. Switzerland, 11. Ireland & New Zealand, 13. Germany, 14. Austria, 15. Malta, 16. Spain, 17. US, 18. Czech Republic, 19. Portugal, 20. Belgium & Japan, 22. Greece 23. UK, 24. France, 25. Mauritius & Costa Rica, 27. Slovenia & Uruguay. Flawed democracies: 29. South Africa, 30. Chile, 31. South Korea, 32. Taiwan, 33. Estonia, 34. Italy, 35. India, 36. Botswana & Cyprus, 38. Hungary, 39. Cape Verde & Lithuania, 41. Slovakia, 42. Brazil, 43. Latvia, 44. Panama, 45. Jamaica, 46. Poland, 47. Israel, 48. Trinidad and Tobago, 49. Bulgaria, 50. Romania, 51. Croatia, 52. Ukraine, 53. Mexico, 54. Argentina, 55. Serbia, 56. Mongolia, 57. Sri Lanka, 58. Montenegro, 59. Namibia & Papua New Guinea, 61. Suriname, 62. Moldova, 63. Lesotho & Philippines, 65. Indonesia & Timor Leste, 67. Colombia, 68. Macedonia, 69. Honduras, 70. El Salvador, 71. Paraguay & Benin, 73. Guyana, 74. Dom Rep, 75. Bangladesh & Peru, 77. Guatemala, 78. Hong Kong, 79. Palestine, 80. Mali, 81. Malaysia & Bolivia 81. Hybrid regimes: 83. Albania, 84. Singapore, 85. Madagascar & Lebanon, 87. Bosnia and Herzegovina, 88. Turkey, 89. Nicaragua, 90. Thailand, 91. Fiji, 92. Ecuador, 93. Venezuela, 94. Senegal, 95. Ghana, 96. Mozambique, 97. Zambia, 98. Liberia, 99. Tanzania, 100. Uganda, 101.Kenya, 102. Russia, 103. Malawi, 104. Georgia, 105. Cambodia, 106. Ethiopia, 107. Burundi, 108. Gambia, 109. Haiti, 110. Armenia, 111. Kyrgyzstan, 112. Iraq. Authoritarian regimes: 113. Pakistan & Jordan, 115. Comoros & Morocco & Egypt, 118. Rwanda, 119. Burkina Faso, 120. Kazakhstan, 121. Sierra Leone, 122. Niger, 123. Bahrain, 124. Cuba & Nigeria, 126. Nepal, 127. Côte d’Ivoire, 128. Belarus, 129. Azerbaijan, 130. Cameroon, 131. Congo Brazzaville, 132. Algeria, 133. Mauritania, 134. Kuwait, 135. Afghanistan & Tunisia, 137. Yemen, 138. People's Republic of China, 139. Swaziland & Iran, 141. Sudan, 142. Qatar, 143. Oman, 144. Democratic Republic of Congo, 145. Vietnam, 146. Gabon, 147. Bhutan & Zimbabwe, 149. Tajikistan, 150. UAE, 151. Angola, 152. Djibouti, 153. Syria, 154. Eritrea, 155. Laos, 156. Equatorial Guinea, 157. Guinea, 158. Guinea-Bissau, 159. Saudi Arabia, 160. Uzbekistan, 161. Libya, 162. Turkmenistan, 163. Myanmar, 164. Togo, 165. Chad, 166. Central Africa, 167. North Korea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BishheartElsie (talk • contribs).
Refs: http://www.economist.com/theworldin/international/displayStory.cfm?story_id=8166790&d=2007 and www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.pdf.
Jim Douglas, can lists of countries really be copyrighted in any way? --BishheartElsie 09:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia.  Yes, the list is a significant portion of a copyrighted Economist article.  It looks like an excellent reference to use to improve the article, but including the entire list verbatim goes beyond what "fair use" allows. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 09:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I wont revert again even though I hold a different opinion. Good luck with the article and best of wishes, --BishheartElsie 09:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for a blue-linked section 

message: See this: . Several problems: First, deletions of sourced statements and sources. Two, the text contradicts itself. Direct democracy does sometimes include representatives. Third, "The critics of non-direct democracy argue that democracy is more than merely a procedural issue, where merely voting and the presence of representatives fulfills the definition of democracy." This an incorrect description of the view of the critics which criticze the lack of emphasis on things like civil rights. Fourth, criticisms and advantages of specific forms democracy are better left to the subarticles. Otherwise this overview article will get too long. I can add pages of of criticims and advantages otherwise of all the forms of democracy mentioned here.Ultramarine 09:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my reply below.Ultramarine 22:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Specifically referencing the two party system (USA) and the multi-party system (the rest of the world, in general).  It seems Democracy should cover the nature of the US form of democracy in executing elections where only one primary run-off discourages the existence of a third party, as opposed to allowing those who vote for third parties which are eliminated to choose among the more popular parties, until all have been given the chance to choose among the two strongest contenders.  The modern mechanism is for each voter to guess which parties will be the top two contenders (Rep vs Dem in the USA), and then to vote for the "lesser of two evils," lest they risk "throwing away" their vote for an unviable candidate/party.
The multi-party parliamentary system of coalition building should also be discussed in the light of its application to and advancement of the will of the people, i.e. Democracy.--Landen99 22:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a discussion board or chat room for expressing personal opinions. Cite sources please. Also note that discussions about specific forms of democracy, and the disadvantages and advantages are better discussed in the articles about these forms of democracy, otherwise this overview article will become extremely long. For instance, I could easily add dozens of pages regarding criticisms of Soviet democracy.Ultramarine 22:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, note that is primarily an overview article about worldwide democracy in a general sense, and not the the place for extensive discussion about the US.Ultramarine 22:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: DO NOT EVER EDIT OR REMOVE MY TALK PAGE STATEMENTS!!! Ultramarine 22:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no agreement that the main pillars of democracy are elections. See the article itself, some argue for sortition or consensus, for example. Now elections are an important part of representative democracy, but not all agree that this is the best form of democracy. Have a look at the article about liberal democracy, that article discusses various forms of electiorial systems. If you want to add a discussion about the differences between two-party system and multi-party systems, that would probably be the best place. Note that this often depends on whether the system have proportional representation or a plurality voting system.Ultramarine 23:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, this the oveview democracy article. Not everyone agrees with you regarding elections. Again, read for example the sortition article. See earlier comments above.Ultramarine 07:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Read Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. This will be my only warning. Again, not all agree that democracy must involve elections or voting, as noted by cited sources.Ultramarine 20:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elections and typical, modern democratic party systems 

message: In the recent edit, " 22:06, 13 December 2006 Ultramarine (Talk | contribs) (unsourced, also the place the discuss specific criticisms and advangtaes of specific forms of democracy are on their articlesy, otherwise this article will become to long)"
Ultramarine (user) has vandalized the Democracy page under the guise of requiring "citations" by removing short, concise, obvious, and much needed clarifications/definitions of key principles of democracy.  There is a place for citations (by commonly accepted experts) with statements which are not generally accepted without them, but this line has been clearly crossed today.  Statements of the Obvious need no citations, else it is impossible to admit such facts as "the sky is blue," because eventually every citation must point to the observation of "the obvious," without any further citation.  Does there exist a cited authority on sky color who is beyond the requirement to cite the work of another authority?  And if not, then there exists no end of citations, and no evaluation of the legitimacy of a citation may end, until all of their citations have been investigated; how many other people see the obsurdity that this demand for citations has been taken.  For eventually, someone must observe the obvious in such a way that all concur with the observations without requiring that person to cite another's observations and work.
I propose that the deletions of Ultramarine on 13 December at 22:06 be reversed, and that if these kinds of vandalisms continue, his editing privileges be either limited or removed. --Landen99 23:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comments in the section above. The statements here  are unsourced personal opinions and do not follow Wikipedia:NPOV. Also, read Wikipedia:No Personal AttacksUltramarine 07:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Personal attacks and ad hominem are the arguments of those with no factual arguments.Ultramarine 21:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but you have follow Wikipedia policy and cite sources. If you want to chnage policy, this is not the place. I have provided sources for that some consider sytems that do not have eletions to be democratic; you have not given sources for your personal opinions.Ultramarine 21:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Report of Utramarine (user) abuse of editing privileges 

message: Doesn't 'Marxist criticism of Democratic capitalism' better describe that new section (versus Marxist criticism of Liberal Democracy)?  Considering that Democratic capitalism is the predominate form in use today, a short section including criticism seems appropriate to give some balance to the article. BruceHallman 21:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Liberal democracy is a far more common term that democratic capitalism.Ultramarine 21:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Obviously npov requires all views to be included if we should discuss pros and cons of liberal democracy in this article, and not only criticisms, and regarding this not only Marxist criticisms. So again, should we copy the very long "Advantages and disadvantages of liberal democracy" from the liberal democracy article here? Alternatively, if we should have a summary of pros and cons, then the Marxist text must be proprtionally shortened.Ultramarine 21:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Democratic capitalism is not synonymous with liberal democracy, and I see that the Marxist criticism is aimed at the former, not the latter. Which is the 'more common term' should be irrelevant. BruceHallman 21:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an article regarding democracy, a political system, not capitalism, an economic system.Ultramarine 21:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'democracy' as really practiced in the world today is associated directly with an economic system, indeed.  The typical reader of this article expects that when they search out and read this article, and we should honor the expectation of the reader.  BruceHallman 21:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The typical reader expects to read about democracy, not capitalism. In addition, "democratic capitalism" is a term that the creator only used for US capitalism. He explicitly excludes capitalism in Europe: "Novak’s insight is that the European continental version of capitalism should be distinguished from capitalism as it developed in England and the United States.27 According to Novak, the former version is in accord with the Weberian vision of a selfish, miserly, greedy, grasping, coldly-calculating capitalism dedicated solely to wealth accumulation. So does Marxist criticisms only apply to US capitalism and not other varietes?Ultramarine 22:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Free market democracy then.  BruceHallman 21:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neologisms are original research. The link goes to "democratic capitalism".Ultramarine 22:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neologisms are an entirely separate issue.  That modern democracy is largely free market democracy is broadly accepted.  After a very quick check for WP:V I find verification at freedomhouse.org (see page 23 of their annual report) and verification on dozens of pages at the US State Department.  Clearly, too, Marx criticism is aimed at this same nature of modern democracy, the free market democracy.  (As opposed to the more general liberal democracy.) BruceHallman 16:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then you should have no problems presenting some quotes by Marx or Lenin mentioning "free market democracy" or something similar and how he thought it differed from some broader conept. Also, could you give a link to the definition of "free market democracy" and how it is used in academic research?Ultramarine 16:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marxist criticism 

message: It appears to me that the above controversy originates from the fact that the section under dispute is a section dealing with Marxist criticisms of liberal democracy. Notice my emphasis on criticisms and liberal democracy. Because the section is critical rather than descriptive, it invites counter-argument. Because the section deals with liberal democracy, it is better suited to the liberal democracy article rather than this one.
A possible solution would be to write a purely descriptive section about the positive Marxist views on democracy (that is, the Marxist views on the kind of democracy that should exist, rather than the kind that shouldn't). This section would have to feature a prominent link to dictatorship of the proletariat and soviet democracy, where the issue is discussed more in-depth. -- Nikodemos 23:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems very good. The socialist democracy section could be expanded in order to present the various socialist alternatives in more and accurate detail. Pros and cons are left to the subarticles.Ultramarine 23:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This avoids the Elephant in the room which is: Readers of this encyclopedia will be interested in learning about democracy as it now exists, pro and con.  This article should prominently feature this information. Also it is standard practice in this encyclopedia to include in the article a 'criticism' section.  BruceHallman 16:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously npov requires all views to be included if we should discuss pros and cons of liberal democracy in this article, and not only criticisms, and regarding this not only Marxist criticisms. So again, should we copy the very long "Advantages and disadvantages of liberal democracy" from the liberal democracy article here? Alternatively, if we should have a summary of pros and cons, then the Marxist text must be proprtionally shortened. My prefered alternative is of course to keep this in the subarticles, like we do for the other forms of democracy.Ultramarine 16:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: How do you figure?  The subject of this democracy article should be what the typical reader expects (and hopes) to find when they type into the search box and click 'go'.  It should not be what editors, with political agendas, want.  Obviously the typical reader exists in today's world and therefore the democracy they are interested in learning about is that which now exists in their world.  BruceHallman 16:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A possible solution

message: A few minutes ago I was tempted to move the entire advantages and disadvantages section back to liberal democracy, but then I gave it some more thought. Surely there are some arguments for and against democracy in general - not just liberal democracy in particular. Those arguments should remain in this article (by the way, the Marxist one is not among them). I propose the following rule:
Those arguments that refer to democratic government in principle (such as the "tyranny of the majority") belong in this article. Those arguments that refer specifically to real instances of democracy in the past 200 years (such as statistics on the performance of democracies in various fields) belong in liberal democracy. -- Nikodemos 10:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since "democracy" refer to so many systems I think you will have difficulty finding any criticims that can apply to them all. Regarding "tyranny of the majority" I think at least anarchists and supporters of deliberative democracy and and supporters of sortition would argue that it does not apply to a "real democracy", that is, their variant. Lenin would see it as an advantage. However, you could maybe use faith based arguments, like it is against some religous laws which demand a theocracy or monarchy, or aristocratic/racist argument that some groups naturally are superior to others and should rule.Ultramarine 11:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arguments for and against

message: Marxism is a major political theory and its views should not be avoided. First, we of course shell include Marxist criticism of liberal democracy along with criticism from other positions. We do not need criticism of criticism here though. We should  also include the Marxist view on democracy how it should be (which is impossible without including Marxist criticism of liberal democracy). We should include liberal criticism of Marxist proposals.--Nixer 22:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Marxist view