Talk:Direct democracy

This talk page should have archives

This is a huuuuuge talk page, and ought to be archived. Is anyone against using MiszaBot I to archive this page automatically? --Explodicle (T/C) 19:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll take that as a "no". Please don't change the archive templates I'm about to put up or archive manually until MiszaBot does its thing. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Misconception

"Today, Switzerland is still an example of modern direct democracy, as it exhibits the first two pillars at both the local and federal levels."

Switzerland has indirect democracy. Representatives decide which laws are implemented. Sometimes the swiss voters can decide in a binding fashion, but not always.

Direct democracy indeed means that at any time everyone can use his vote in a legally binding manner without any middle man. The sentence should be changed, because Switzerland does not have a direct democracy as this sentences implies. In fact I believe up today, there is no real form of direct democracy implemented anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.103.172 (talk • contribs)

Switzerland, like numerous examples in various other countries incorporates 'elements' of direct democracy. It is obviously not a direct democracy. But that doesnt mean that the elements aren't there. I know that in places like California, the directly democratic ballot initiatives are often counter-productive and undemocratic even though they are meant to be democratic. They are used not as a way of letting the people decide but rather to create wedge issues that bring certain people to the polls and keep others behind. Also, these ballot initiatives are bank-rolled by private interests and therefore never really express the will of 'the people'. I would say its important to note that direct democracy is only possible outside a capitalist political system because capitalism necessarily gives economic clout in the political arena and that is always undemocratic.Frombelow (talk) 07:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting opinion, but any contested claims (like this one) need a source. I've removed the quote above from the article. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

But dictatorships may "incorporate elements of direct democracy" as well at times. Anyone may incorporate "elements". Representative democracy includes partial direct democracy as well. But the fact still remains that as far as I know, no direct democracy exists. This should be made more clear, and if noone objects, I would happily change this to reflect to emphasis more. The claim that "switzerland is an example of modern direct democracy" is still completely wrong. How can anyone have direct democracy when indirect representatives decide on issues? The only thing that is valid is that the switzerland allows for more direct input, i.e. allowing more referendum and similar. It is still a largely representative democracy however. 80.108.103.172 (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

number of citizens in athens

the article states that 30,000 citizens, at its maximum, could vote in athens; the article in athens states the number at 60,000. Which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.255.121 (talk) 03:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

POV?

The Democratic Schools section doesn't seem to be NPOV. I'd add a banner, but I don't know how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.189.102 (talk) 02:07, 10 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 13:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)