Talk:Direct democracy
Appearance
Please add
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Politics C‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
|
Please add
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Philosophy: Social and political C‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
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. The sentence should be changed, because Switzerland does not have a direct democracy.
Categories:
- C-Class politics articles
- High-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- C-Class Philosophy articles
- Mid-importance Philosophy articles
- C-Class social and political philosophy articles
- Mid-importance social and political philosophy articles
- Social and political philosophy task force articles