Talk:Democracy/Archive 3

message: The term Democracy:
The essence of the term is absolute and thus not subject to qualification by other terms (i.e., direct or indirect democracy).  This position is articulated in the following reference:
http://www.New-Byzantium.org / Table of Contents / An Analysis.
Mark Athanasios C. Karras
* I understand, but disagree. Very few terms are absolute, often because the things they describe are not atomic.  From infinity to unique to, indeed, the atom, the use of qualified modifiers to circumscribe the meaning of the absolute modifier is helpful, and often required for understanding. Also, these terms have widely accepted meanings, each of which could garner its own wiki article. Chrisvls 22:48, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democracy 

message: Just one short comment to the part about retricted franchise. Note that a dictatorship is actually an extreme case of democracy, with franchise restricted to just one person. --Kpalion 22:18, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Democracy and franchise

message: I suggest to refactor this article in this manner :
=== Definitions ===
A definition of what democracy means in the general sense and all other meanings.
=== History ===
A historical perspective, which should be a summary of a longer 
history of democracy.
=== Democratic systems ===
All types of democracy, theoretical and real. (Already plenty of that in the current article).
==== Democracy and politics ====
An explanation of what constitute a contemporary democratic system, ie, what institutions exist in a political system that call itself democratic. We could consider Robert Dahl's criteria for evaluating a democratic system:
# Equality of votes 
# Effective participation 
# An enlightened comprehension of the problems at hand 
# Possibility to control the political agenda 
# Social inclusion
And the 7 institutions needed to meet these criteria:
# Elections of officials
# Free and just elections
# Inclusive suffrage
# The right to apply for an elective post
# Freedom of expression
# Access to alternative information sources
# Freedom of association
===State of democracy in the world===
What democratic systems are in use in which countries right now.
What do you all think? -- Mathieugp 04:42, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is a good idea, the current article is not very good. The definition section definetly needs expansion, it even lacks mentions of procedural view of democracy (the one that concentrates on democracy as a type of government, like definitions of Schumpeter, Huntington, Lipset) and political view of democracy (aka substantial, the one that asks in whose name and for what purpose the power is held) (see works of Dahl, Gurr, Sartori). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:35, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed refactoring

message: What democratic systems are in use in which countries right now.
What do you all think? -- Mathieugp 04:42, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is a good idea, the current article is not very good. The definition section definetly needs expansion, it even lacks mentions of procedural view of democracy (the one that concentrates on democracy as a type of government, like definitions of Schumpeter, Huntington, Lipset) and political view of democracy (aka substantial, the one that asks in whose name and for what purpose the power is held) (see works of Dahl, Gurr, Sartori). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:35, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: State of democracy in the world

message: Am not a great fan of US politics in general but from what I could gather here from the problems facing Arnie, the state of California seems to practice a very direct democracy with referendums. Isn't this the best known modern example rather than citing a parish council? --(talk)BozMo 11:53, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Direct Democracy