Talk:Democracy/Archive 7

message: Does anyone have any ideas about how we can address the situations where democratic decisions are not always made with majorities? --Stevietheman 20:53, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Democratic decisions from pluralities

message: It would be also good to include content covering the idea that in a constitutional framework, democracy is more of an ongoing process rather than just what takes place on Election Day.  Modern democracy includes the right to participate in the formulation of regulations, to petition the government for grievances, to mount campaigns to convince Congresscritters (and their equivalents everywhere) of specific positions, to take group economic actions which demonstrate the power of said group so their positions are taken seriously, etc. --Stevietheman 15:54, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Democracy doesn't end on Election Day

message: First of all, this article has been about "modern democracy"/"liberal democracy" for a long time.  If we wish to change the article title to "Democracy (modern)", that's one approach for  further clarification, but on the other hand, it's not unusual for there to be a lead article in the Wikipedia for a term that has multiple meanings.  It probably is obvious that "modern democracy" is far and away the leading approach to describing the term "democracy" at this time.
That said, the Socrates blurb relates to Athenian democracy, not modern democracy, which this article is about.  Beyond this, there are already a good number of "tyranny of the majority" examples so that having the Socrates blurb or any others doesn't really add any additional useful info anyway. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 18:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Socrates blurb / Modern democracy

message: The older greek and roman (under the senate not the emperor so don't bite my head off) democracies were more in the sense of having to vote for a policy rather than a person. In modern democracies this is simply not the case. Is a democracy therefore voting for a leader, or is it "tyranny of the masses" as so eloquently put in the article?
:The term Democracy is simply rule by the people, through laws or elected representatives. A Republic is a form of democracy in which leaders are elected based on the will of the people and serves as a check on the tyranny of the masses. --Mr Anthem 07:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote for What? 

message: An anon keeps inserting a large amount of poorly formed POV.  Please everyone help us keep this out of the article unless and until this person goes over the material in the talk here.  We can't have stuff like this sit in the article for hours before reversion.  At best, this material needs a lot of discussion and cleanup before inclusion. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 00:14, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: Just realized the big chunk that's missing from this article.  It's almost hard to believe the historical development of modern democracy hasn't been covered yet, at least, in this article or an article of its own.  Anyone care to take a stab at this sometime?  It might be fun.  :) — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 03:07, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical development of modern democracy

message: Actually, I was curious about one thing: besides Hitler's pre-Nazi Germany example, which other examples in history can show that democracy has failed?
It is all very well to talk about the benefits of democracy in the democracy page, but to be balanced, we need a lengthier 'cons of democracy' section, illustrated with more examples.
This is not intended to be an anti-democracy point, but rather, if an entire section can be devoted to democracy being "the loyal opposition", then the least one can expect is an opposing view to the opposition, so to speak.
PS I also note that in other political theories, there are lengthy, detailed sections on its criticisms - why can't there be an effective one for democracy as well?
-- jsw663 03.44, 03 May 2005
:Agreed but with a caveat:  There's still many positives about democracy that have been left out as well.  We need a full exploration of both the pros and cons. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work</span> 02:46, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I completely agree, but it seems as if the cons section is seriously underdeveloped, whereas I personally, with my limited knowledge, cannot think of many more pros of democracy!  -- jsw663 03.50, 03 May 2005
Democracy? What democracy? Representatives are mostly liars, traitors and criminals carefully selected by parties and Ivy League secret societies to give only a handful of choices to the people. And then, whatever the choice of the people, representatives stab everyone in the back with a vast metaphoric dagger. The primary election process for the President of the United States of America is the most complicated in the world, with complicated party and government rules at each of the local, state and federal levels, modified at each election for the victory of a particular candidate, in stark naked contrast to the simple systems used in the rest of the USA dominated world. The world's a labor aristocracy. The "independent observers" that stand for the entire world's opinion of whether any one election is "free and fair" are probably just Americans pasted onto world opinion, anyway. The constitution is whatever someone that passed the Bar, the President and Congress likes, says that it is. If it's not a direct democracy, it's just the reigning criminal organization, especially the way that states historically act. And democracy is nothing but a gigantic lie. Santa Claus is nothing more or less than the spirit of Christmas. See lie to children.
The USA isn't even a Westphailian state anyway. The state isn't organized, the state isn't a community, its politics is just an ideological cover for a battle of elites and commoners on each side trying to rob each other, there are no territorial limits to its world domination or hegemonic influence, and its sovereignty is used in a self defeating way. The War on Drugs and the semanticomoronic "Terror" are both completely self defeating: some deterrence, no reform, no escape, no alternative, no possibility of diplomacy.FET 00:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cons of democracy 

message: There is a delicious portrait of the very inner workings of power:
It is of Russian President Vladimir Putin and champion Olympic Greco-Roman wrestler Alexander Karelin.
Karelin towers over Putin in a protective posture while Putin shows a hovering glee.
The "pinnicle" of society "needs" the more "base" elements for its existence.
Find it at: 
--Scroll1 02:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Power Personified. 

message: Just like on Communist state, Ultramarine is able to assert ownership over yet another article through his willingness to violate the 3RR. 172 | Talk 15:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have decided to copy his strategy and revert at nauseaum. If it attracts the attention of an admin, good. Arbitration is precisely what we need here. If both myself and Ultramarine are banned from editing the article, good. Since he's the only one pushing a POV, and since all I am trying to do is restore neutrality, I am certain someone else will pick up my NPOV-ing work once Ultramarine is no longer allowed to vandalize the article. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 15:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Marxists have stopped even trying to explain their deletions of the results of peer-reviewed studies. Ultramarine 16:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I will revert until either you understand the need for neutrality, or we both get banned. Those "studies" of yours are pure propaganda and you know it. There's nothing wrong with propaganda, as long as wikipedia doesn't endorse it. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Mihnea, don't break the 3RR, just report it on the admin noticeboard each time he does it. He is giving himself himself enough rope to hang himself, so copying his strategy might be a bad idea in the long-run. I've seen way too many good users leave because of trolls. 172 | Talk 16:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well, I will stop reverting. But I sincerely hope an admin comes by soon. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It might take a while, but it will happen since I've been notifying individual admins. Eventually we'll have 48 hours of relief to clean up his mess. 172 | Talk 16:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ultramarine and 3RR

message: It is a poltical urban legend - spread often by conservatives - that the "founding fathers" used Democracy to refer solely to direct Democracy. This is not true, there are numerous citable examples of the concept of Democracy meaning a Republic where the people are the soveriegn body. For example, during the debates over the Bill of Rights. Among all of the other things that need to be changed, this gross inaccuracy - how ever often repeated - needs to be corrected. Stirling Newberry 06:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Urban legend? That's exactly how they used the term, and diffentiated it from republicanism. For example, Madison in Fed Paper 10: "The greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter" And, "Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,--is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it." ...That whole paper is about protecting individuals FROM democracy. In a democracy the majority IS the law, wherease in a republic the majority is limited BY the law. RJII 00:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The legend is that direct democracy was the only meaning of "democracy". False; consider " the strong and the weak parts of our republican institutions, and the excellence of a representative democracy compared with the misrule of kings", from Jefferson's letters. This is associated with the other half-truth: that all the Founders regarded direct democracy as an inevitable evil, or necessarily lawless.  Stating a half-truth unqualified is worse than a lie. Septentrionalis 13:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're saying some of the founding fathers would use the word "democracy" when they were actually referring to a republic. Ok ..just semantics. But, wait, Jefferson qualified it as "representative" democracy  ..that's a republic. RJII 15:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracy on this page 

message: I'm starting this section for the author of the recent radical rewrite to explain all the changes to the article.  My objection is that the changes wiped out a lot of the work of a large community of authors, without explaining the changes here first.  My request is simple:  Just explain why you're making the changes you're making in each area.  And if the consensus is that they're good, they will sail through, no harm, no foul. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work</span> 21:07, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
There is no 'community of authors' which owns this article, all users can contribute, and no prior approval is required for Wikipedia edits. The logic behind each change to existing text was given is the history. and in fact very little was removed, most was just moved. Some sections were added, and no reason has been given to simply delete them. There is no requirement to post every addition on the talk page for prior approval.
The older version of the article was too Americo-centric, and was not comprehensive, it did not even include a description of what a democractic system in fact is. It also needed a clean-up, since things had been added piecemeal. Items specifically related to liberal democracy belong in that section Ruzmanci 14:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent radical rewrite

message: 'Essential elements of a democracy' was added, since much of this was not covered in the article. The discussion page is not the place to post the content of the article, but since that has been requested (see above) here are the elements of democracy, as added to the article:
* there is a demos, a group which takes political decisions by some form of collective procedure. Non-members of the demos do not participate. In modern democracies the demos is the nation, and citizenship is usually equivalent to membership.
* there is a territory 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 in themselves, if they are governed from the colonial motherland: demos and territory do not coincide.
* there is a decision-making procedure, which is either direct (for instance a referendum) or indirect (for instance election of a representative government). There are other procedures, including surviving citizens assemblies.
* 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 (government and courts) which go against personal choices or interests. It is especially relevant for democracies, since elections have both winners and losers.
* 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.
* the demos has a long-term unity and continuity, from one decision-making round to the next - without secession of the minority.
* in the case of nation-states, the state must be sovereign: democratic elections are pointless if an outside authority can overrule the result. In Europe, eurosceptic nationalists argue that the European Union does exactly that, and the EU has created a parallel democratic structure in the European Parliament. That means that EU member states do, to a certain extent, have two forms of government, and the status of a 'democratic Europe' is contentious and unresolved.
== "is not a democracy== huh? 
Frankly I don't see the value of a section on the expression "blankety blank is not a democracy" especially given the random collection of examples which seem to make no noticeable point as here. --Christofurio 00:26, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
If democracy as a value is discussed, then it could be pointed out that some organisations - like the Catholic Church - find it inappropriate. But this stub section is indeed a pointless addition.Ruzmanci 18:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description of democracy 

message: This comment needs explanation its significance for democracy in general...
:Bill Moyen argues that "democracy can't exist without an informed public" in his preface to "The Future of Media".  Commenting on this, Richard Posner states, "If this is true, the United States is not a democracy (which may be Moyers's dyspeptic view). Only members of the intelligentsia, a tiny slice of the population, deliberate on public issues." 
Who is Bill Moyen? Who is Richard Posner? How are non-American readers supposed to have the background knowledge to place them in context?Ruzmanci 11:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moyen and Posner 

message: I rewote this section, so that it now starts with the political use of DPT as a pro-democracy argument. It now distinguishes between the dyadic and monadic versions of DPT and their differing attitude to democracy. I scrapped the Cold War reference, since it is an example of the 'bloc peace' explanation within DPT, it is not a criticism of DPT as some people think, and it is therefore irrelevant to include counter-examples here, they belong in the bloc peace section at the main DPT article.Ruzmanci 18:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite democratic peace theory 

message: I rewrote the section on poverty and democracy, which was unabashed propaganda, and Americo-centric. It is not the function of this article to provide a platform for glorifying the American way of life, and the American form of government, or to serve as a link farm for right wing think-thanks.
Here is the revised version:
There is overwhelming statistical evidence for the presence of poverty in democracies, primarily from census data, tax data, household income surveys and specific research on poverty. In addition, there is overwhelming statistical evidence that the democratic states have failed to relieve massive and acute poverty in non-democratic states, despite their (democracies) generally higher GDP per capita. Poverty and democracy is an emotional and highly politicised issue. Logically, a democracy inhibits redistribution of majority wealth, and redistribution between states: voters prefer to keep their money. However, many supporters of democracy see this as an advantage of democracy. If, for instance, democracies are rich and autocracies are poor, that is (in their eyes) proof of the superiority of democracy, rather than proof that democracies are selfish. Supporters of democracy often quote the prominent economist, Amartya Sen, who notes that no functioning democracy has ever allowed a large scale famine to affect its citizens. The fate of citizens of other states is not considered relevant for this argument.
Similarly, internal inequalities are often discounted in assessing the standard of living in democracies. In some democratic states, a high national score on the human development index (HDI) is accompanied by differentials in health, education, and income among ethnic groups. In the United States, in every state, infant mortality is higher for African-Americans then for whites.. In a survey of infant mortality trends, G. K. Singh and S. M. Yu conclude:
The long-term downward trend in US infant mortality has not benefited Blacks and Whites equally. The Black/White disparity in infant mortality has not only persisted but increased over time and is not expected to diminish in the near future. Educational inequalities have also widened, and racial disparities have generally increased across all educational levels.
Supporters of democracy emphasise the high average scores of democracies, although the strong inequalities in the United States depress its average scores on health and social indicators, compared to other developed democracies. Again, it is logically consistent with majority rule, that the majority can allocate itself better access to social infrastructure such as education and health care. Whether that is an advantage or a disadvantage of democracy is a value preference.
The politicised dispute on democracy and poverty is further complicated by the historical parallel development of liberal democracy and historic capitalism, during and after the industrial revolution. (The term capitalism is no longer generally used in Europe, except to refer to the 19th century). It  is therefore difficult to distinguish cause and effect. Some American pro-capitalism groups support the theory that more capitalism increases economic growth and that this in turn increases general prosperity, reduces poverty, and causes democratisation. In such theories, democracy will not bring prosperity, but results from it. Political supporters of democracy tend to argue that it is itself causal. The issue has been further complicated by the economic success of China and other non-democratic states in Asia. In a 2005 Foreign Affairs article, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and George W. Downs conclude:
Until quite recently, conventional wisdom has held that economic development, wherever it occurs, will lead inevitably - and fairly quickly - to democracy... The fact that almost all of the richest countries in the world are democratic was long taken as iron-clad evidence of this progression. Recent history, however, has complicated matters. As events now suggest, the link between economic development and what is generally called liberal democracy is actually quite weak and may even be getting weaker...  the growing number of affluent authoritarian states suggests that greater wealth alone does not automatically lead to greater political freedom.
Ruzmanci 11:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poverty and democracy 

message: I find that this section of the article is POV, and makes statement it purports as facts when this is not always justified with a reference. Overall I believe that the author has assumed that "democracy" refers to the US system and socio-economic model. I cite what I dispute below along with suggestions,
1) article "There is overwhelming statistical evidence for the presence of poverty in democracies, primarily from census data, tax data, household income surveys and specific research on poverty."
Problems: a) This overwhelming statistical evidence is not cited. (b) It suggests, indirectly but still in a significant manner, that the largest relative poverty gaps are in democratic states, which I do not believe, factually, is the case. If I am mistaken then I would appreciate a source being cited here.
Suggested rewrite: "Statistical evidence, primarily from census data, tax data, household income surveys and specific research on poverty (link to this) shows that democracies still experience poverty in their own states."
2) article "In addition, there is overwhelming statistical evidence that the democratic states have failed to relieve massive and acute poverty in non-democratic states, despite their (the democracies') generally higher GDP per capita."
Problems "non-democratic states" - I assume here the author is referring to issues of aid, particuarly in Africa. Most African  states are democracies, ableit often unstable. Furthermore, despite being a make poverty history campaigner myself, I would question whether it is plausable to judge a system by how it affects the economics of non-democratic states. Lastly, once again statical evidence is cited but not referenced
Suggested rewrite: "Futhermore despite the richest nations in the world being democracies, global problems of massive and acute povety persist"
3) article "Poverty and democracy is an emotional and highly politicised issue. Logically, a democracy inhibits redistribution of majority wealth, and redistribution between states: voters prefer to keep their money. However, many supporters of democracy see this as an advantage of democracy. If, for instance, democracies are rich and autocracies are poor, that is (in their eyes) proof of the superiority of democracy, rather than proof that democracies are selfish"
Problems Logically, a democracy inhibits redistribution of majority wealth. This logic leaves no room for charity or compassion. For example, owing partly to widespread public support for Make Poverty History, the UK government lead a campaign for more aid, cancelling of debt and fairer trade with povery-stricken nations at this year's G8 summit. The first two aims were largely sucessful. Sadly, however the author's logical assesment appears to have some merit as the current international trade system is horrendous in my interpretaion. But that's my POV. I would suggest a rewrite should extol this logical conclusion in a manner which gives scope to alturism.
There are also selfish reasons for international development as countries try to establish markets and trading partners, I cite the Marshall Plan as an example of this and alturism in almost equal measure.
Once again I must persist in my statement that most poverty stricken nations are democracies. The argument in the last sentance is flawed in that regard and appears to give an conclusion that democracies are selfish. This is POV in the extreme
Suggested rewrite "Poverty and democracy is an emotional and highly politicised issue. Without a degree of alturism within the voting population the democratic system inhibits redistribution of majority wealth, and redistribution between states: voters prefer to keep their money."
4) article "Supporters of democracy often quote the prominent economist, Amartya Sen, who notes that no functioning democracy has ever allowed a large scale famine to affect its citizens; this is a dubious representation of his actual argument. The fate of citizens of other states is not considered relevant for this argument."
Problem The use of the word "dubious" is inherently POV. "Questionable" or "Debatable" would be preferable. However I believe this entire argument is a Straw man and so:
Suggested rewrite (remove these two sentances)
OK, its 3am here and I need sleep. I've run through one paragraph and I'll probably tackle the rest tomorrow. Overall, here is my rewrite of the first paragraph in full:
"Statistical evidence, primarily from census data, tax data, household income surveys and specific research on poverty (link to this) shows that democracies still experience poverty in their own states. Futhermore despite the richest nations in the world being democracies, global problems of massive and acute povety persist. Poverty and democracy is an emotional and highly politicised issue. Without a degree of alturism within the voting population the democratic system inhibits redistribution of majority wealth, and redistribution between states: voters prefer to keep their money."
Apologies for mistakes in grammar and spelling, I've probably overused UK spellings terribly. I would apppreciate the communitie's comments on this first paragraph so I know what track to take, if any, with the next few paragraphs. 
LukeSurl 02:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disagreement and suggested rewrite of this section

message: Liberal democracy is not a clearly defined, fixed, entity, it is a vague term which means different thing to different people. What is more, many of them are propgandsitic in nature, especially the claim to provide 'freedom'. In reality, political freedom is sharply limited in some respects, and for some groups. Those qualifications were deleted, and I have now restored them. Once again, it is not the function of this article to provide a platform for glorifying the American way of life, and the American form of government.Ruzmanci 11:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You make numerous original claims. Again, give sources. Ultramarine 17:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberal democracy 

message: Those who wish to present a positive image of the democracies would be wise to avoid health statistics. Someone else, perhaps that was Ultramarine, presented among other things the Human Development Index as evidence of the superiority of democracy. Anyone who reads the HDI country reports, will know they are critical of health inequalities and poverty rates in some democracies, and especially in democratising countries. The one-sided picture has now been corrected, and that is the prime purpose of referencing some official statistics, and an article on infant mortality rates. It is not necessary or relevant to list every poverty statistic here, or to list every national census bureau that maintains them. Of course non-democracies have poverty and inequalities, the problem was the suggestion that democracies are perfect in this respect, or that democracy ends poverty and guarantees a better life for all. It doesn't, and on theoretical grounds that should not be expected, since majority rule will tend to cumulate majority advantage - and therefore minority disadvantage.Ruzmanci 11:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Statistics

message: ===Dubious claims without sources===
"It is a universal ideology: most supporters of democracy consider it to be the only ethically legitimate form of government, and believe it should replace all other forms of government." Source please. Ultramarine 00:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have previously asked you to read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Cite sources. In addition, read Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia is not the place to express personal opinions and new research. In addition, you do not seem to understand the difference between anecdotal evidence and a general statement. Personal observations by you is not evidence for a general law, you need statistics, surveys, and similar methods. Ultramarine 17:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The opinion article is opinion. You removed referenced studies showing the effect of economic freedom on political freedom, including statements of causality. Less poverty for democracies is certainly an advantage, and there should be a discussion with factual references and not opinions regarding the causes of this. Ultramarine 17:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then this a political view regarding whether there should be one European state or many. That does not belong in a general article about democracy. Ultramarine 17:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

text: It is quite different to state that democracies limit political freedom and to state that political freedom is not freedom. Do you mean both or one of them? Ultramarine 17:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Again, the US is not all democracies. If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that there is increasing inequality in democracies and that this is an inherent defect. As a first step, please show that there is increasing inequality in democracies in general. Ultramarine 17:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Freedom House scores nations on two things, political rights and civil liberties. Not "primarily", but on those two things which include elections. Thus, your statement "In theory, a country could ensure all civil rights and political freedoms, and simply not hold elections" is false. Ultramarine 17:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

text: You can get Mein Kampf within 24 hours from Amazon, no copyright problems in English. Copyright is generally not viewed a limitation on freedom of speech. There are numerous neo-nazi webstites in the US. There may be some limitation of speech for those directly advocating terrorist acts, but this is not general evidence that "in many democracies, anti-democratic expression is specifically excluded from this freedom". Ultramarine 18:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

text: You added "Note that this is presented as an advantage of democracy in the 'pacifist democracy' thesis, which is part of Democratic Peace Theory." Thus you are arguing that the DPT which shows that democracies are peaceful, especially against each other, in fact argues that democracies are ineffective in wars. This in false and pov. Ultramarine 18:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The so-called referenced version is in fact a one-sided version heavily re-written by user Ultramarine, generally attempting to present the work of R. J. Rummel as DPT itself. There is an editing dispute. Ultramarine's behaviour at that article is one reason for the requested arbitration.Ruzmanci 12:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of proposed changes 

message: "It is a universal ideology: most supporters of democracy consider it to be the only ethically legitimate form of government, and believe it should replace all other forms of government." Source please. Ultramarine 00:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have previously asked you to read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Cite sources. In addition, read Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia is not the place to express personal opinions and new research. In addition, you do not seem to understand the difference between anecdotal evidence and a general statement. Personal observations by you is not evidence for a general law, you need statistics, surveys, and similar methods. Ultramarine 17:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious claims without sources

message: Your section on poverty has removed statements supported by several peer-reviewed studies about the effect between capitalism and democracy. Instead you have replaced them with a long quote from an opinion article, claiming that economic growth is no longer causes democratization. Here is a recent peer-reviewed study on the subject. There have been studies that showed that economic growth is not important for democratization itself, but it was important in order for the state to remain democratic. With better methods, economic growth is shown to affect democratization . Ultramarine 02:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The opinion article is opinion. You removed referenced studies showing the effect of economic freedom on political freedom, including statements of causality. Less poverty for democracies is certainly an advantage, and there should be a discussion with factual references and not opinions regarding the causes of this. Ultramarine 17:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Statements with dubious source

message: "There are other procedures, including surviving citizens assemblies." Do you mean that people are killed? Ultramarine 00:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then this a political view regarding whether there should be one European state or many. That does not belong in a general article about democracy. Ultramarine 17:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is quite different to state that democracies limit political freedom and to state that political freedom is not freedom. Do you mean both or one of them? Ultramarine 17:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Again, the US is not all democracies. If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that there is increasing inequality in democracies and that this is an inherent defect. As a first step, please show that there is increasing inequality in democracies in general. Ultramarine 17:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear statements 

message: "The widely quoted Freedom House surveys are usually seen as a measure of 'democracy' in each country, but rate primarily human, civil, and political rights. This may simply be propagandistic - democracy is presented as a list of 'good things' - but it is notable that rights are not in themselves a form of government. (In theory, a country could ensure all civil rights and political freedoms, and simply not hold elections)." The Freedom House's ranking of political rights for different nations includes fair and free elections. Ultramarine 00:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Freedom House scores nations on two things, political rights and civil liberties. Not "primarily", but on those two things which include elections. Thus, your statement "In theory, a country could ensure all civil rights and political freedoms, and simply not hold elections" is false. Ultramarine 17:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You can get Mein Kampf within 24 hours from Amazon, no copyright problems in English. Copyright is generally not viewed a limitation on freedom of speech. There are numerous neo-nazi webstites in the US. There may be some limitation of speech for those directly advocating terrorist acts, but this is not general evidence that "in many democracies, anti-democratic expression is specifically excluded from this freedom". Ultramarine 18:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

text: You added "Note that this is presented as an advantage of democracy in the 'pacifist democracy' thesis, which is part of Democratic Peace Theory." Thus you are arguing that the DPT which shows that democracies are peaceful, especially against each other, in fact argues that democracies are ineffective in wars. This in false and pov. Ultramarine 18:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual inaccuracies 

message: The whole section as it currently reads is pov and has factual inaccuracies in almost every sentence. Please see the referenced version of the Democratic peace theory article and the "List of proposed changes" in the talk page of that article. Ultramarine 00:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The so-called referenced version is in fact a one-sided version heavily re-written by user Ultramarine, generally attempting to present the work of R. J. Rummel as DPT itself. There is an editing dispute. Ultramarine's behaviour at that article is one reason for the requested arbitration.Ruzmanci 12:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democratic peace theory 

message: User Ultramarine made a large number of objections to content of the article. I attempted to explain the purpose of the specific content, and why the objections were insufficient. However, he simply tries to enter into a new contoversy, either by querying the logic of my comment, or introducing new issues which are not in any version of the Democracy article. Additionally, Ultramarine regularly refers to Wikipedia guidelines as if they constitute an authorisation for his edits and especially deletions. They do not, but there is no reason to enter into controversy about this either.
This is not a discussion forum, and if there is an editing dispute, there is a procedure for that. Posting endless queries about the same content is not appropriate. For the arbitration issue, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Ultramarine
Ruzmanci 09:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Add the capitalism article to that list. A few months ago he was a very unethical in editing that article as well ..caused a lot of unnecessary problems. RJII 01:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The extreme left and right unite. I am flattered. Ultramarine 06:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This has nothing to do with left and right, but a rogue editor. RJII 11:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

text: RJII is of course correct that this has nothing to do with worldly politics, but with conduct on Wikipedia. As a lifelong centrist, however, I do wonder where the extreme left and right come into it. Perhaps RJII is both of them. :-)Septentrionalis 17:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was one of the leaders of the conservative debating society at college; I was even called an anarcho-capitalist once. My views have not changed much since then; I suppose this leaves the extreme left for RJII. Congratulations. Septentrionalis 19:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit controversies and Ultramarine 

message: I restored the points about democracy needing shared values and a high degree of political legitimacy. These are not dubious personal opinions, but standard remarks about democracy by its advocates and by political scientists, especially in the context of democratisation. Obviously, democracy fails if the losing party and its supporters shoot the incoming government. Obviously there are winners and losers in an election, there is no reason why this whole issue should be deleted to avoid the term 'losers'.
As far as values are concerned, unity of basic values precedes acceptance of democratic values. I used earlier the example of things like human sacrifice or compulsory child prostitution.  Voters in western countries know the opposition won't implement such policies, which are mortally abhorent to them. That is because they know the population shares their abhorrence. If this breaks down - as with the prospect of Islamic city governments in Europe in about 30 years time - the democratic process is itself in trouble. Why would Ultramarine delete this point about shared cultural values? Presumably because it implies that the population are not motivated by pure and joyous commitment to democracy itself.
I also clarified the failure of legitimacy, to refer to modern states. Political civil wars are much less common than ethnic spearatism. Poverty, corruption and famine do not generally lead to failure of legitimacy, unfortunately, they tend to be accepted. Starving people are not in a position to overthrow their government anyway. (In Somalia the breakdown of central authority was the cause, rather than the effect, of famine).Ruzmanci 10:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Somalia has a lower rate of abject poverty than its neighbors. Some credit the lack of "central authority" for their increasing prosperity.   RJII 12:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Very interesting point. Thanks for the links. --Christofurio 12:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Amazing that someone can call Somalia a success when the statistics state that they have a much higher Adult illiteracy rate, much lower Population with access to safe water, a much lower Per capita household income, and much lower school enrollment than other West African nations. Their justice system is clan based and doesn't work outside the clan. Inflation destroyed their currency. The "bank" system charges a 5% fee for a transaction. The road system is deteriorating. On the other hand, the rich have access to mobile phones and air travel :). Ultramarine 13:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

text: 10% of the population have voted with their feets and fled the Anarchy to states. Health standards are among the worst in Africa. Close to 80% of the population have no access to healthcare and trained medical personnel attend to just 2% of births. Maternal and infant mortality are now among the highest in the world – one of every four children does not reach the age of five. When General Siad Barre's government fell in 1991, the entire education system collapsed . Ultramarine 13:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet they have a lower rate of abject poverty than their neighbors with governments. Go figure. You can't expect to civilization to be immediately be prosperous when it has suddenly been cast into anarchy and lost everything. The remarkable thing is what has happened since. They're on their way up from having nothing at all. It proves that central authority is not needed for economic development. RJII 14:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

text: That 43% compared to 52% live under $1/day is not a large difference. Compare to Average household income 226 vs 438. Illiteracy 81% vs 35%. Access to safe water 21% vs. 60%. Primary school enrollment 17% vs. 82%. The somewhat lower number for the poverty line may be related to that poorest have fled the Anarchy or have been killed. Or related to the lower Gini number, a clan based society that shares possessions may have lower inequality. But this does not sound very capitalistic :)  Ultramarine 16:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why you would expect things to be great there when there is a lack of law and order. Crime is rampant there --property is stolen and lives are lost. My point was is in reply to Ruzmanci who claimed that "famine" in Somalia was due to a lack of central authority. If there are less people living in abject poverty in Somalia than in neighboring countries with central authority, then it doesn't make sense to argue that the lack of central authority is the reason for "famine" in Somalia. I don't think it's difficult to realize that the reason there is less abject poverty in Somalia is because of economic development --jobs are being created. And the study cited indicates that central authority is not needed for economic development. And, in the article I cited about the telecommunications industry there, it appears that the lack of central authority is the reason that that industry is serving the public better than in neighboring countries with a central authority regulating that industry. RJII 23:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political legitimacy 

message: This is, I'm ashamed to say, one of the worst Wikipedia articles I've ever seen on a major concept. It is in desperate need of a rewrite by someone who actually knows something about the concept. Let me point out some of the errors, and this is just from the first few paragraphs:
*The concept of democracy was not 'forgotten' from Ancient Greek times until 1500 - most parts of the world never knew anything about it.
*The church did not 'rule the world' from Ancient Greek times until 1500. In most parts of the world the church did not exist for that time. Even in Europe the statement ignores Feudalism, the rise of the nation state, and whole other areas of actual history.
*The intro can't make up it's mind if it's giving an overview of history or benefits. 
*We shouldn't have one-sentence paragraphs.
People, we can do better than this. DJ Clayworth 14:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with this article

message: True Democracy - The complete majority, or the number of votes with respect to the ENTIRE group.  Not original by itself, but certainly rarely practiced.  The rule of the people versus the rule of dictators and of factions.  Full majority is oftentimes required in court decisions of both judges and jurists, in various religious conferences, in US presidential impeachments, in US constitutional ammendments (I'm an American so I speak that experience), in many family decisions, etc.  It appears that factions arise from minority control and that relative democracy (where the percentage of the voters is "considered the majority;" certainly not of the demos!) brings minority rule.  True Democracy does not permit society or government to ignore any persons views or to violate the privacy of any group smaller than a majority.  Andy Landen
Roger:
The people who do not vote are letting the others decide for them.  It is a good way to handle it if you do not think you know enough to decide.  The result is the decision of all who were interested enough to go and vote.  That is seen as the decision of the majority, even if not all people choose to use their right to vote.
In a really democratic country there are no further demands on the voter than that they go and vote, if they like. In some, less democratic, countries big groups of eligible voters are hindered from voting with the help of registration or other procedures you have to go through to be allowed to vote.  These procedures can be difficult or dangerous for ethic minorities, for example black people were discouraged or threatened if they tried to register, or tried to vote, in some southern states in USA.
That is something you should complain about if you live in such a country.  In a modern democracy you get a voting card by mail a month before the election, and you can vote on a post office or in the regular voting place.  Roger4911 18:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  True Democracy 

message: Some editors are trying to equating democracy with "the people rule themselves" and "self-government." It think it needs to be made clear that this is the supposed idealism behind democracy but in actuality it's the majority that does the ruling. Actual self-government and people ruling themselves is anarchism. That the majority should prevail is a collectivist concept, not an individualist one. RJII 14:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what you're talking about. I've never professed to be an anarchist and I've never claimed to oppose democracy.  Besides, my personal values are irrelevant. Stick to the subject matter and trying to improve the article. Merriam-Webster defines democracy as: "1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority" That's all I'm trying to get across here --implemented democracy is rule by the majority. "Self-government" can't be democracy unless you consider an entire populace as a "self." In actuality, a populace is a number of selves. In a democracy, the majority rules, not the "self." RJII 15:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: self-government

message: In looking at the political science literature on democracy I very frequently see reference to Freedom House and its ratings system.  This is not to say that it is uinversally accepted, but because it is so widely known and because the methodology is explicit, it seems to me that it makes a natural and helpful point of departure for any serious discussion of the subject.
Some political scientists criticize the FH ratings as too heavily weighted toward formal institutions and suggest that this can be corrected by also considering the World Bank's governance indicators.  This seems like a good approach to me.
--Will O'Neil 20:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freedom House definition -- a point of departure for this article?