Talk:Representative democracy

Misinformation

Misinformation? You are the one spreading misinformation. Not only Franklin, but Jefferson credited the Iroquois with more than a bit of credit for ideas used in the founding of our nation and form of government. See Forgotten Founders for one well researched source. William Pitt as well.

http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/FF.html

Read Chapter Six, Self-Evident Truths:

http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/FFchp6.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.153.215 (talk • contribs)

As to the following statement:

"Representative government was invented in the sixteenth century when Deganawida established the League of the Five Nations of the Iroquois in what is now New York State. The Iroquois model of representative government influenced English philosophers, as well as Benjamin Franklin, and inspired the Americans and French to create representative democracies. ASS HOLE"

There is no historical data to support virtually any claim of this statement. There is data to the contrary that it was "invented" in the 16th Century or by the Iroquois. There is no data supporting the idea that the Iroquois Constitution was implmented in the 16th Century, some scholars would put the dat to five Centuries earlier some later, or that it was a real representative democracy in the sense that each tribe member was able to elect the tribal elders. This statement is pure misinformation. If a case can be made for it we should remove it.

There is plenty of historical data to support this claim although it does contain several errors. Deganawidah was a Huron man (not one of the five tribes of the Iroquois Confederacy) who influenced Hiawatha, a Mohawk chief to go woth him to the leaders of the five warring tribes to negotiate peace. The eagle holding the arrows on our one dollar bill is from that incident where Deganawidah shows how one arrow alone will break while five together cannot be broken. See Forgotten Founders-Bruce E. Johansen, Exiled in the Land of the Free,Indian Givers-Jack Weatherford. Even the textbook on American Government sent to me by Houghton-Mifflan acknowledges the influence of the Iroqois Confederation on the Articles of Confederation-the basis for our Constitution.(pg 25) You are correct about the date, however. "Using a combination of documentary sources, solar eclipse data, and Iroquois oral history, Mann and Fields assert that the Iroquois Confederacy's body of law was adopted by the Senecas (the last of the five nations to ratify it) August 31, 1142."(Bruce Johansen)MrgnsmsMFV

Isn't representative democracy and modern democracy equal to a republic?

What would you call a type of democracy that has every candidate getting elected? Each of say ten candidates in each constituency would get a few or a lot of votes, then serve to represent those who voted for them when voting on issues. This would allow candidates to be truthful about their politics rather than joining one or other party in order to get elected. Annual elections would allow good public servants to rise at the expense of poor ones in a reasonable time. Pay would depend on votes. Voters would be paid a small amount to get a good turnout. And every voter would have ten representitives to take their ideas or problems to. Representitives would have ten times less work to do, freeing them up to have a job or run a business. Representitives could elect an executive to form a government, and change it at will to improve the workability of it. No hoo hah at elections, just information and voting, then business as usual. Maybe there is a name for this type of representitive democracy, but I don't know it.

Was Athenian democracy (as the first democracy) a representative democracy? Did decision-makers represent the interests of the people? If so, did it matter if the representatives were randomly selected or elected?

Athenian Democracy is what is known as Direct Democracy where a group of privileged citizens meet to make decisions. This is comparable to a congress without the other two branches and who do not represent anyone else but themselves. Women, slaves and those without property were excluded from consideration. This only works of course in a small place like the city state of Athens. MrgnsmsMFV

Can representative democracy include methods of selecting representative that are more impartial (and, therefore more "representative") than elections? It appears that the current article on representative democracy propagates misinformation and limited thinking on what "representation" and "democracy" are all about by limiting the idea to elections.

representative democracy

I think that a representative democracy form an athenian standpoint did not represent the masses but the majority thus leaving out the minority to fend for themseleves. This type of democracy in a sense does work out in many societies today. We elect representatives to go and vote on what they beleive is the best intrest for the greater good of the people. I truly beleive if it were left up to the people in a direct democracy we would surley faulter and our country would be in grave economic devistation, People would not agree on things which in turn would cause greater tremoil within thus leaving a burden that should not be there.

You miss two facts here. First, we haven't tried it yet(well, Athens tried it successfully but they were not millions(and most of them were spending too much time discussing at the "agora" anyway) and didn't represent all people that lived there, women and the slaves), and second, it's not practical or economical to hold polls all the time, at this time in history. The first point is very strong. By having people not caring about what's going on they may vote and leave it there till the next time. But if your vote affected your life in a negative way you'd know better next time. The second point is self explanatory. Even a sunday off at this time is too expensive, imagine doing polls all the time. If technology permits it, I believe it will happen more frequently in some distant future. A third point says, if you like "cheese!" you may be the only one, still the mojority would decide and you'd be left out. Just like now. --Fs 11:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

copied?

Not sure which came first, but a lot of this page is almost identical to this page: [1]

I think we should be careful in case this was plagarized from the original page.

Edit -- whoops, I take that back, I failed to see this quote at the bottom of their page: "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Representative_democracy".". Sorry about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[hola

Article upgrading

Since the main democracy series of articles point directly to this one as a top-level division of types of democracies (direct/indirect=representative), I suspect it should be made more comprehensive. I'll see if I can find appropriate linkages to other articles, etc.

Also, I suspect that a fellow Canadian may have been involved in creating the current version, what with the Royal Commission and Canadian Senate references. Nonetheless, I'm not sure that deliberative democracy is the right phrase for a Royal Commission, at least considering how that article defines it. - David Oberst 01:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I made a few changes to the text:

• A representative democracy can involve more powers given to the legislators than under a constitutional monarchy or participatory democracy, so almost all constitutions provide for an independent judiciary and other measures to balance representative power. Since constitutional monarchy gives Canada and Australia as examples, it doesn't seem helpful to implicitly indicate they are not representative democracies, which the existing phrasing seemed to. I eliminated the reference to participatory democracy, as that article defines no state or other political region as such to make a useful comparison.

• To put things simply, representative democracy is also called republicanism. - recently added by an anon. This doesn't seem correct, and I've removed it.

• Moreover, while some contend that representative democracy eliminates demagoguery, there is little reason to believe the elected representatives are not themselves demagogues, or subject to the persuasive appeal of demagogues. I removed this, as a 50 year old book described as "pop sociology" hardly makes the case that representative democracy is inherently held hostage to demagoguery!

• I removed the "neutrality NPOV tag, as there seems to be no current discussion here on the Talk page regarding this, or what the perceived problem might be.

If someone would like to work on this, I'm sure the "Critique" section could be rewritten to avoid the simplistic (and unattributed) grumble about "the wealthy", and "corruption". Also, I'm not sure that "constitutional democracy" is the right phrase to describe "checks and balances" as something that is chiefly associated with the US as opposed to "other advanced industrial democracies". Other possible additions might be mention of electoral systems, contrasts with Anarchism, etc. - David Oberst 19:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Illiberal Democracy

I recently read the article on illiberal democracy. Generally, its contents seemed fine and worth saying somewhere on Wikipedia. However, what bothers me is the term illiberal democracy. I have never heard of it. Fareed Zakaria is quoted as a source but does this legitimise it as a proper political term? Why not non-liberal democracy for example?

Taken to its extreme, we could simply add any adjective to a known term to create a topic we want to write about. Contents-wise, no problem as it keeps expanding Wikipedia, but my point is the inventing of erroneous terminology in the process? If a young scholar were to quote all these invented terms from Wikipedia as part of a research project, they may be the laughing stock of academia. Is this what we want Wikipedia to become?

Does anyone share my concern? How can we create articles about certain subject matter without inventing new terminology? Eltharian ^Talk 31 August 2006

Yes On the Wiki page "Illiberal Democracy" there is not one "Citation" I can find that Justifies coining the USA as a Illiberal Democracy I notice a huge push trying to coin the USA as a "Democracy" a lot of Hacks adding the word Democracy when it comes to America !!!--Kimmy (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

References and citations needed

This is a complex topic. The only link is to an advocacy website at the bottom of the page. The article needs solid sources to support the validity of the information presented. Alien666 13:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Name?

Sorry if this has been addressed already... but isn't a "representative democracy", basically or in function, a republic? Anyone mind explaining the difference(s), if any, other than the fact that we Americans apparently like to say we're spreading a type of "democracy" rather than spreading "republic"? Jutm543 03:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

My reading of republic seems to indicate there is a difference. It's a long article, but give it a read. Josh Parris#: 00:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think USA should be removed from this page as an example of a representative democracy, because it is a republic which is different. For one, read the constitution - there is no mention of the word democrat or democracy in it, it only speaks of a republic. One of the differences is where sovereignty lies. 72.94.54.29 (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No a republic means you have a president opposed to having a monarch. In recent years Republicans has tried to change the meaning of 'republic' to mean representative democracy as opposed to 'democracy' which they claim means direct democracy. This a childish game of words, based on the names of two US parties. The US is both a representative democracy and a republic, they not different government forms. One says the source of all power is in the people the other that the head of state shall be a president. Carewolf (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Carewolf, The US is a representative democracy. To leave it out of the list is odd. It was the first thing that struck me while reading this article. 04redsox07 (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Fabricated form of Government?

It seems that "Representative Democracy" is a fabrication to get the word "democracy" into the description of the USofA government! There's even a comment about a "supreme court" and "interpreting the constitution" which have nothing to do with actually describing democracy. The USofA is a Constitutional Republic, attempting to invent classifications to include the word "democracy" to meet some political objective is a disservice to wikipedia.

A complete red herring. "Representative Democracy" has been first used by Marquis de Condorcet in Lettres d’un bourgeois de New Haven à un citoyen de Virginie, sur l’inutilité de partager le pouvoir législatif entre plusieurs corps (1788) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.32.219.3 (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The term is also used outside of the USA! It applied to almost all democracies - for instance it's how constitutional monarchies such as the UK or Sweden (or Canada) describe the function of their democratically elected chambers --Spartakan (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd add that the term is used in contrast to direct democracy --Spartakan (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

What does this mean?

"The representatives from more than what it used to be when it was a independent ruling body..." makes absolutely no sense. I suspect that a careless edit has accidentally caused this. 86.143.52.40 (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Automatically archive this page?

Is anyone against using MiszaBot I to archive this page automatically? --Explodicle (T/C) 20:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Juxtaposing a republic and rep. democracy

From what I read from both articles, a representative democracy and a republic appear to be one in the same, which would mean they belong in the same article (one redirects to the other). There must be some differences between the two, otherwise there would not be two different articles about it.

Can someone please put in the differences between a republic and rep democracy? Only, instead of having to go back and forth between articles, this section actually juxtaposes the two. I'd be doing it myself, but I don't know the differences.

If there are none, can someone please merge the two?Wikieditor1988 (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you read the US Constitution, it states that every state must have "a republican form of government," not a representative democracy form of government. However, all fifty states have a form of government almost identical to the federal government. The biggest difference is that the judges are elected in most states, not appointed by the governor, and they serve definite terms.

That right there is overwhelming evidence that republic and representative democracy are one in the same.Wikieditor1988 (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I would descibe the UK as a representative democracy and it is not a republic. The UK operates in the context of a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy (a term which also applies to Germany) rather than a republic and a presidential system as exists in the USA, Russia or Brazil. All these countries have elements in their constitutions that are representative democracies: the elected chambers - House of Reps, House of Commons, Bundestag etc) --Spartakan (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No Edmund Burke?

It seems strange to have no mention of Edmund Burke - and his defence (and definition of) of the principles of representative democracy against the notion that elected officials should be delegates

...it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
The Works of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke. Volume I (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1854), pp. 446-8.

The quote comes from Burke's entry on this site, with my emphasis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartakan (talk • contribs) 16:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC) --Spartakan (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI

If people who watch this page are also interested in how Wikipedia is governed, be sure to check out this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development . Slrubenstein | Talk 13:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism by 63.88.37.225 on 24 September?

On 24 September, anonymous 63.88.37.225 reduced the article from 7483 to 3585 chartacters, replacing the definition with one that (a) applies to the USA only and (b) seeks to define a representative democracy as an electoral democracy or constitutional republic - very different concepts.

I don't have the detailed knowledge or time to fix this (and don't want to get into an edit war), but perhaps someone to rescue the content as it existed prior to 24 September? The previous definition might not have been perfect, but at least it was relevant to the topic and tried to be general. --Spartakan (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Slight Question

Within one of the paragraphs, it is said that Australia has a system where a plurality is required, but in the next few sentences it states that Australia requires a fifty percent majority. Which one is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reflections of Memory (talk • contribs) 02:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

No Citation this article is a Joke

The Title says it all -

hardly any citation and flat out lies in this article, I have no idea where to start ! --Kimmy (talk) 12:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Today, in liberal democracies, NPOV

Why is the Article going on about liberal democracies? should this not be mentioned in another page ?

Sounds like Pushing POV —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim0290 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

constitutional democracy

"the United States relies on representative democracy, but its system of government is much more complex than that. It is not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional democracy in which majority rule is tempered."

UMMMM who changed this ???? THE USA is a Constitutional Republic --69.180.250.102 (talk) 07:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)