Talk:Democracy/Archive 6

message: Who is Les Marshall?  If he is an expert, why no affliation? This paragraph seems to make a fairly simple point in a very convoluted way.  But I think the quote should go, since 1) I can't find any books or other material by the guy, hence adding him to the artcile does not add any authority or helpful info, 2) if the article's own voice can make the rest of the points in the paragraph, then it does not need a quote to make the point about the seeming inevitability to a multi-party structure, 3) the quote doesn't seem to add as much analysis. Chrisvls 20:01, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Les Marshall

message: Can someone please explain the recent changes?  It would be much appreciated. -- Stevietheman 04:53, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I am familiar with the changes in Tyranny of the majority, however, they seem to be pretty self-explanatory, the original naively claimed that such hadn't existed.  I knew this wasn't true, having lived through the moral hand wringing of conscription during the Vietnam war, when young men who were not even considered old enough to drink or vote were being sent off to war.  The ability of a majority to single out a minority like this is one of the major flaws in democracy.  Some recognition of this flaw is demonstrated by the need for the Bill of Rights and the checks and balances and super-majority provisions of the US Constitution.  However, more is obviously needed, perhaps provisions that a majority of voters must be at the highest tax rate for instance or that a majority of voters must be subject to any conscription law, so that majorities can't easily agree to oppress "the other guy", i.e., some minority.  I hope this explains it, ask questions if it isn't clear to you. --Silverback 07:23, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer to see an explanation by the authors about why the beginning of the article was so dramatically altered.  It's not my job to ask questions, but it behooves the author(s) to explain their work. -- Stevietheman 22:35, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I am planning to rewrite the initial section today.  In my opinion the layout and style have got worse (and probably the NPOV status also).  I will try to remedy those problems.  Barnaby dawson 10:15, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes

message: I've moved the material on democracy in the cyber age to the page on Habib R. Sulemani because the section was just about his theorising on democracy.  Barnaby dawson 10:15, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Democracy in the cyber age

message: Speaking only as a visitor, I'd remove "Educated citizens, knowledgeable of the issues of the day, and informed of their rights and civic responsibilities" as a institution of democracy.  While education is a desirable goal, all the other characteristics you list are actually incorporated into the structure of democratic government.  Education is a utopian hope, not a defining characteristic.  Many democracies survive just fine with an ignorant electorate -- not that I'm naming any names.  (Nov. 7, 2004)
:Some degree of education of your citizens is characteristic of modern democracies.  It is incorporated into the constitution of many countries.  However I agree the rider 'knowledgeable of the issues of the day' is overstating the case.
:However, I would certainly say it is something to strive for.  Education of your citizens is not a utopian dream it is something that many european states provide up till the age of 18.  The quality of that education varies but so do the quality of many of these institutions.
:I changed the wording to remove 'Knowledgeable of the issues of the day'.  Barnaby dawson 22:16, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Educated citizens

message: Please give a specific objection to the text as currently on the page.  Your objection appears to be to the certain actions as being viewed as tyranny of the majority.  However the article does not assert that these are examples of tyranny of the majority.  Barnaby dawson 16:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality message

message: That quote from Edmund Burke was obviously grabbed from this web article (notice the date) http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:0RpAbRIh_jMJ:www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx%3Fcontrol%3D1504+%22absolute+monarchy,+is+not+to+be+reckoned+among+the+legitimate%22+&hl=en but it's somewhat misquoted, and if you read the article you see that the way it's used here is misleading.  Burke is talking about a specific aspect of the French government c. 1789-1791. 68.118.61.219 02:59, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Burke quote

message: Ruy Lopez - I'm not sure why you have been deleting the examples supplied under this heading - they seem good ones to me. So I've restored them for now. Are there others that you think are better? I would suggest it's helpful if these are taken from a different political colours. What do other people think? On a slightly separate point I took out "like the United States" from the end of the second para of this section - I don't think it adds much and comes across as a bit arrogant and non-encyclopedic in tone. More importantly, what point is the second paragraph of this section trying to make - I'm not sure I understand it so I think it needs improving. Can anyone help? --Cjnm 13:56, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You've done a good job on the 1st paragraph.  The "like the United States" was vandalism, if someone has a conceptual framework that supports its inclusion here, they should supply more detail, rather than a snide dependent clause.--Silverback 14:24, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: I don't know what measure is being used to determine that an election is a ritual in a country, and doesn't make it a real democracy, in the case of the USSR, Iraq, Uganda and Iran I suppose the crime of not submitting to the US is what determines this (although Marcos had been thrown in for good measure). This is POV and will be removed. Ruy Lopez 16:25, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Try freedom of speech, more than one party, a real choice, although in the US the two major parties often run to the middle blurring their distinctions. --Silverback 21:33, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text:  It doesn't look like there is consensus for the changes you want to make, so you will have to convince people that they are an improvement. To answer your question, the paragraph seems to be about where governments have organised things called "elections", but without in practice allowing people to have a say in relation to which people are in the positions in power. The examples given seem good examples of this to me. Please don't delete them without convincing people why this is a good idea. --Cjnm 10:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elections as rituals