Talk:Democracy

Archive 1 : Discussion in and before 2002. Topics: Should there be a distinction between a republic and a democracy?, Right to vote denied to prisoners?, Denial of right to vote on basis of race or ethnicity, Participatory Democracy, Direct democracy, Clear and practical examples of participative democracy
Archive 2 : Discussion from 2002 to January 2004. Topics: Origin of democratic system, Confusing paragraphs, 146.124.102.84's POV edits, Constitution, Anon's announcement, Weird edit, Statement removed, Moved paragraph, Sortition, Unencyclopedical quotes?
Archive 3 : Discussion from January to May 2004. Topics: Czaktisto's complaints/change requests, Democracy, Democracy and franchise, Democracy definition, Proposed refactoring, Direct Democracy
Archive 4 : Lengthy discussion in May-June 2004 about controversial parts of the article
Archive 5 : Discussion from June to September 2004.
Archive 6 : Discussion from October to December 2004.
Archive 7 : Discussion from all of 2005.
Archive 8 : Discussion from 2005 to 8 May 2006
Archive 9 : Discussion from 8 May 2006 to 25 August
Archive 10 : Discussion from 25 August 2006 to January 2007
Archive 11 : Discussion from February/March 2007
Archive 12 : Threads started in April 2007-May 2007

Merge discussion on historical usage of Democracy and Republic

There seems to be several places where Democracy and Republic are compared in a historical context, often referring to how the founding fathers used democracy to mean "direct democracy" and republic to mean "representative democracy". There is a section is Republicanism, there is a section in Democracy, and there is some information scattered in Republic and in several orther articles and footnotes. I think these should all be merged in the section under Democracy entitled "Democracy and Republic" as it currently has the most useful and referenced information. Perhaps, a new article can be created altogether that just focuses on the history definitions of these words. JavidJamae —Preceding comment was added at 01:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"Free and fair elections" - what's that?

What does the phrase "free and fair elections" (used in the "liberal democracy" subsection) mean? I think that the ambiguous qualifiers "free" and "fair" should be replaced with something more specific, such as "secret ballot", "universal suffrage", etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drono (talk • contribs) 17:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

I do not think there is agreement regarding the exact criteria. Freedom House requires universal suffrage but this excludes some nations usually seen as liberal democracies, such as the UK and the US at the time of WWI. The Soviet Union in theory had universal suffrage and secret ballots. Some researchers have used very wide definitions and count Louis-Philippe of France as a democratic liberal regime, see the democratic peace theory.Ultramarine 05:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I submit that "free and fair" has to be made more definite - as it is, it is meaningless and misleading. If there is no widely accepted standard, then the term should be removed. --Drono 05:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is one common element of all definitons, as the ones given above. Do you have any opposing views? Ultramarine 06:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Drono. Both words are loaded images and qualify as weasel words. After all, who would oppose something that is "fair" and "free". Free and Fair elections are a common element of all definitions of the concept of Liberal democracy, but the WP-article by that name is mainly about the practical applications by countries calling themselves a liberal democracy. These countries are hardly universally defined by or accepted to have "free and fair" elections. Malc82 12:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The section in question describes the concept. Both of the given sources mention free and fair elections: [1][2] Whether some particular nation does have this is in practice is an entirely differen question.Ultramarine 15:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hm, thinking about this some more, probably all form of democracy would claim to be free and fair, so maybe this should be removed as redundant.Ultramarine 15:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Anarchist Democracy

The citation actually says "In General Idea of the Revolution Proudhon ostensibly rejects both unanimous and majoritarian direct democracy. Read more closely, however, his criticisms can be confined to national forms of direct democracy designed to replace representative government but which will effectively perform the same political functions. Unless we are to assume that Proudhon is simply self-contradictory, his criticisms of a strictly political form of direct democracy cannot have been meant to apply to the economic or industrial form of democracy which he himself had been advocating for a number of years. But upon what basis can Proudhon distinguish the two?"

If Proudhon "rejects both unanimous and majoritarian direct democracy" why does our article say "He argued that the only acceptable form of direct democracy is one in which it is recognized that majority decisions are not binding on the minority", especially since the refernce points out that he opposed unanimous democracy.

Do we need Proudhon at all? His claims are confusing to me and do not add to this article. What does he teach us about democracy? Raggz 00:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This section is confusing. Proudhon's ideas are the reason? They are well-known to be contradictory. How can we make this section better? Raggz 01:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Some anarcho-communists & non-majoritarian consensus

We have in our article "Some anarcho-communists oppose the majoritarian nature of democracy, feeling that it can impede individual liberty and opt in favor of non-majoritarian consensus". Isn't a non-majoritarian consensus a synonym for minority rule and a majoritarian consensus a synonym for majority rule? Raggz 07:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Types of Democracy Article

We have attempted to describe all of the List of types of democracy in this article. Please review this page, because I propose (1) moving almost all discussion on forms of democracy to that page and (2) referencing this other article in our opening paragraph. This is a major conceptual revision, but the article needs serious streamlining. Discussion? Raggz 20:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

See the earlier extensive discussion of the 'list of types' issue in 2006. And, the List of types of democracy article. SaltyBoatr

Searching using "types" I did not find any concensus in the prior discussions. If you believe that a consensus exists, please offer it here?

The primary question offered now is: Does Wikipedia need two articles listing every form of democracy? If so, the secondary question is - why? If not, the secondary question is to either merge these articles or to transfer much of the material in this article to the List article.

Raggz 21:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Binary Democracy

"Democracy as a system based on the political vote has little meaning if there is not also clean water, education, housing etc and, in particular, some form of secure income for all individuals. Binary economics deepens political democracy by addressing the key underlying economics issue of ensuring that a market economy works for everybody in an effective, efficient and just way."

This section is OR, so will soon be deleted if not then supported. Also it should also appear first within the list of types of democracies before it appears within this article. An example of an actual binary democracy would be necessary for the Reader to put it into context. Alternatively, a statement that it is an untested theory AND references suggesting that it has relevance would be necessary. Raggz 20:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree it should be removed. Only describes a proposed modified market economy, has nothing on the political process itself.Ultramarine 21:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Radical democracy

"Radical democracy is based on the idea that there are hierarchical and oppressive power relations that exist in society. Democracy's role is to make visible and challenge those relations by allowing for difference, dissent and antagonisms in decision making processes." Presently this entry is unsupported and constitutes OR. I have no problem with keeping it when it is brought up to Policy standards (see binary democracy comments which may apply here as well). However, I won't just delete it but will wait for this section to develop and be supported. Raggz 22:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Minoritarianism

"Minoritarianism is a political philosophy where various minorities are given some degree of minority rule." This is an important addition that will help the Reader. Can you link it to other articles and ofer one solid citation? Raggz 22:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

explaining my revert

Sorry, I insist that editors use 'most reliable' sources and give attribution of their sources with their edits to this article. Please familiarize yourself with, and follow, the guidelines of WP:V and WP:ATT. SaltyBoatr 20:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I have read WP:V and WP:ATT. Again you refer to a great deal of policy. Could you be more specific? It would help me understand what your specific concern is.

In this and many articles there is an objective to refer the reader to another Wikipedia page where the topic is more fully explored. This was my intent, to refer rather than to debate. Do you agree that the article has been too long, awkward, and might be improved by referrals to pages where topics are more thouroughly discussed than in this article? Do referrals to other Wikipedia pages have a specific attribution required?

Then there is the practical matter of time. After I revise the article I need to get the reference and put it in the article. If you might refrain from future reverts for say, 20 minutes, it would help this article progress. Raggz 21:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I was already specific with you two days ago. Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources (and) Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process. Generally this is not found by researching websites, but instead found in books and libraries. Stick to mainstream academic books and journals to be safe. Twenty minutes? Check the history of my revert, many those were unattributed for far longer. There is no reason you cannot cite your edits using credible published material at the time you make your edit. No, editors are not obligated to refrain from reverting unattributed material immediately. The burden of evidence is on you. See WP:V#Burden_of_evidence. SaltyBoatr 21:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What did you revert based upon this criteria? It would be helpful if you could be specific enough to let me know what we are arguing about? One part of the policy you cite states "Leave a note on the talk page or edit summary explaining what you have done." Raggz 21:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted because you did not give attribution of your edits using 'most reliable' sources. In the future stick with 'most reliable' sources, use citations liberally and use footnotes, it will make collaboration easier. SaltyBoatr 02:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Explaining my most recent revert: I don't see your attribution using 'most reliable' sources. Per WP:ATT, most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and university level textbooks, magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. Websites do not qualify as 'most reliable' sources. Use books and journals, published by universities to be safe. Sorry, to maintain quality in this article, we must be careful about the quality of the sourcing. SaltyBoatr 02:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not know which "website" we are discussing. Please advise? Raggz 03:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Restating myself, I am looking for your edits to be attributed to sources that meet 'most reliable' standards of WP:ATT. SaltyBoatr 03:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Restating myself, I do not know which "website" we are discussing. I doubt that I cire unreliable websites, but if you won't tell me what site this could be, I can't respond. I'm tired of dancing about on this ... what web site are you complaining about? Was it the site that has an English version of the Iranian Constitution?

Thanks for the "diff" info. New to me. Raggz 04:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of websites lack a reliable publication process, and therefore do not qualify as a 'most reliable source', per the guidelines of [[WP:ATT]. For instance your recent usage of the website of the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance appears comprised of self-published material apparently lacking a reliable publication process. Don't misunderstand me, I suspect that the people at IDEA are very nice and important people. But your sourcing of them directly from their website amounts to primary research. If you want to source their ideas, you should use a secondary source that describes their ideas. Specifically, a secondary 'most reliable' source like a book or journal published by a university, etc.. SaltyBoatr 17:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Anti-Democratic Thought

The Anti-Democratic Thought article is poorly constructed. It lacks substance, it reads like an essay, and there are no sources cited; we need deep, intelligent writing for such a complex faculty of political philosophy. Until we can approach that, I say we move the article into the Criticisms section of this article and work from there. VolatileChemical 20:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm very pleased with how far this article has come in the past four months. Good work everyone. Raggz 07:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I merged the very small amount of content still left in the other article here. -- Beland 23:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The current part regarding 'criticism of democracy' states that 'modern criticism of democracy comes mainly from theocratics, communists, fascists and monarchists'. Which is, of course, incorrect. First of all, theocratics do not present 'modern criticism of democracy' but the pre-modern one. The same with old-school monarchists, though most monarchists in the Western world are in fact some of the most staunch supporters of democracy (as in constitutional monarchy). Secondly, many communists moreover believed they presented the 'real democracy' (with a people's democracy and a vanguard party), and even some fascists sometimes had the pretense of being 'democratic'. Of course, few would now agree with this communist stance, but it is a claim that needs professional attention. Furthermore, as fascism stopped playing a serious role in politics, most modern criticism of democracy can be found among libertarians, classical-liberals, traditional conservatives and anarchists. That is from those who follow the footpath of Burke, Hayek, Tocqueville, Spooner, Thoreau etc. I will therefore make a small change to the list, giving some additions to 'theocratics, communists, fascists and monarchists'. Averroes 10:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Use of "Dictator" in Wikipedia

Please see here for debate, thanks. Tazmaniacs 15:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Why no mention of Poland?

Constitution of May 3, 1791

The very concept of a codified national constitution was revolutionary in the history of political systems. The first such constitution was the Constitution of the United States of America, written in 1787, which began to function in 1789. The second was the Constitution adopted by the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth on May 3, 1791. These two charters of government form an important milestone in the history of democracy. Poland and the United States, though distant geographically, showed some notable similarities in their approaches to the design of political systems.[1] By contrast to the great absolute monarchies, both countries were remarkably democratic. The kings of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were elected, and the Commonwealth's parliament (the Sejm) possessed extensive legislative authority. Under the May 3rd Constitution, Poland afforded political privileges to its townspeople and to its nobility (the szlachta), which formed some ten percent of the country's population. This percentage closely approximated the extent of political access in contemporary America, where effective suffrage was limited to male property owners.

Poland was only listed among "non democratic regimes" in between the World Wars. Which was very, very stupid - unless you count the modern Russia as the "non-democratic regime", as it's similarily a strongman-led parliamentary republic with two chambers (oh wait, you mostly don't).

Fix it up people. --HanzoHattori 08:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Democrasy is about being free and chose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.5 (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I added mention of this constitution to History of Democracy. The claim that it was the first Constitution in Europe appears to be contradicted by that article; see, for example, Corsican Constitution. I am not a historian so I cannot evaluate whether or not either of these or the many other examples in the timeline are important enough to merit inclusion in the main democracy article. If you find that respectable historians generally think this is the case, feel free to add it in with a reference or two; there's no need to wag your finger at other editors, since you can do it yourself. -- Beland 01:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

"Consent of the governed"

I don't see a problem with having this phrase in the intro. Yes it is relatively vague but that's the whole point - the article then goes on to set out various "types" of democracy in more detail. I don't understand in what way that isn't clear. Consent can derive via elections, indirect representation, via direct participation, via referendums etc, as the article makes sets out further down. To say democracy is just about elections is pretty simplistic, especially as the definitive statement in the intro (I'll leave aside the point that in my view, the whole intro is incorrectly written as if the word refers merely to a form of government). --Nickhh 16:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

To repeat the point - the lead is meant to be a broad introduction to the issue, and to summarise the details of the article that follows. To specify only the election of legislators and magistrates is to define a very narrow type of representative democracy, and nor does it accurately reflect what follows in the rest of article. Finally, please stop reverting blindly without addressig these questions on the talk page. This article is not called "How I, Drono, choose to define Democracy". --Nickhh 09:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Slogans

Phrases like "consent of the governed", "participation in government" and "free and fair elections" are just slogans and have no specific meaning. What does any of those things mean? How do you know that the people "consent" to be governed? How do the people "participate in government"? What makes elections "free" or "fair"? If you can supply clear interpretations of those phrases, write them out. As they stand, they mean nothing.

By the way, what makes your (Nickhh's) choice of definition, better than mine (Drono's)? Spare me the lecture. --Drono 18:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finally bothering to actually write something on a talk page about your amendements and reverts. Anyway the lecture continues (and in part repeats itself) - 1) elections are a key part of only one kind of democracy only, representative democracy; 2) the point of an introduction is to broadly introduce the subject, not supply a specific and partisan definition; 3) in what way is "competitive elections" any more or less of a slogan than "free and fair elections"?; 4) I don't know how people exactly will "consent" to be governed - the rest of the article attempts to look into that point, and to debate whether it's through elections or another method.

Oh, and as I've said, I haven't attempted to supply a strict definition - let alone claim it's "better" than yours. That's the whole point, I've simply tried to keep the very broad language, that was there for some time, in order to introduce the topic in the introduction, even though it wasn't perfectly phrased. But equally I can't really be bothered to enter a revert war on this article with someone who doesn't understand the basic meaning of English words. Nickhh 11:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

For someone who can't be bothered to go into a revert war, you are very busy reverting, without any clear reason. You admit that your definition is vague - why then do you bother to insert it? Either come up with something useful or let it go. If you don't know what "consent of the governed" means, why is it there? Are you in the habit of writing things that don't have a clear meaning? What part of the article explains the concept of consent?

"Competitive" means that the elections are a competition for votes: two or more independent candidates or parties are trying to convince the voters to vote for them. One can always argue about details of definitions, but "fair and free" is so vague that it is useless. Are elections in the U.S., for example, free and fair? What about elections in Russia? The term is used in a partisan manner to legitimize certain elections and de-legitimize others.--Drono 23:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have given plenty of reasons, which is more than you bothered to do at first. And yes I did revert your changes initially, but as I've said I'm not going to carry on and get into a futile war over it, not least because I'm bored of idiots who bully their own irrational POV into Wikipedia pages. Just for the record, I don't really have a view as to whether "competitive" is a worse description than "free and fair" (although of course a one-party state could have "competitive elections" in that their candidates compete against each other; by contrast "free and fair" fairly obviously means anyone can enter, and that each candidate, other things being equal, has a fair chance of winning). And where did I ever say that I "don't know" what "consent of the governed means"? I know exactly what it means, as I suspect do most people - the issue is what mechanism is used to best attain it.

The point, which you spectacularly keep missing and failing to address, is that democracy is not simply about elections necessarily or solely about the election of representatives, whatever adjective is attached to them. Isn't this now the third time I've had to point this out? Also, more generally, that an introduction cannot tie an article down to a specific - and contentious - definition in its first paragraph, when the rest of the introduction as well as the article itself both go on to describe several different versions. If nothing else, it makes the article read like self-contradictory nonsense Nickhh 19:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, and here's the link to the article you are actually trying to edit, although you don't seem to have worked that out yet. Nickhh 19:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

First, I think that your definition of "free and fair" goes some way toward making things specific enough to be worth writing. Saying that anyone can go onto the ballot is a good condition - the only problem with it is that there is no country in which anyone can just go onto the ballot. If there was such a country, you could expect ballots with thousands of candidates. For everyone to then have a "fair chance" of winning, you would have to have all those thousands of candidates and their political ideas be recognizable to the public. This not only doesn't happen, but is clearly impossible.

My point is that there is a wide gulf between democratic ideology (which is really not about elections at all) and "democratic" practice (which in reality is no more than competitive elections). You can define either the ideology or the practice or both, but do not mix the two up.

BTW, you say: "I'm bored of idiots who bully their own irrational POV into Wikipedia pages." Note the personal tone of your comments and compare them to mine. Has it ever occurred to you that it may be you who is the "idiotic, irrational bully"? --Drono 22:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, that phrase was OTT and came out of my frustration, as much with other editors as with you. However that in turn came from the fact that you were reverting without explaining why - and then when you did eventually respond on the talk page, initially accused me of "lecturing" you and then suggested I put phrases into Wikipedia that I didn't understand. I took both of those as being pretty personal. Anyway, that aside we simply disagree - I think the article SHOULD describe both theory and practice as long as it does so clearly and distinctly (which to be honest it doesn't, either in the long-standing version I was trying to maintain, or with the newer phrasing you introduced). In addition I would argue that there are in fact plenty of examples of democratic practice that do not depend on elections, for example referenda, or direct democracy at a local level. --Nickhh 17:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for apologizing - accepted.

I support handling both theory and practice (separately). I think that the best way to define democracy as an idea or theoretical concept is as a government where citizens are political equals (that is, they all have the same amount of influence on public policy). In this I rely on Robert A. Dahl, one of the most well-known modern theorists of democracy. See, for example, his book "On Political Equality".

As for practice, I think that in reality it is (at the state level, and at any level beyond very small groups) mostly about competitive elections, but you are right to point out that some secondary procedures do exist. --Drono 04:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Dangerous totalitarianism-leaning statements.

I hear such statements often form right wing extremists and here they are on the introductory material:

"Majority rule is a major principle of democracy, though many democratic systems do not adhere to this strictly - representative democracy is more common than direct democracy, and minority rights are often protected from what is sometimes called "the tyranny of the majority"."

First of all, representative democracy is not opposing majority rule. In fact, it is based on it, but it's not direct democracy. If it wasn't based on it, representative democracy could just drop 'democracy' and be good ol' "representative" totalitarianism. The d**n word "democracy" is used in the phrase 'representative democracy' for heaven's sake, it's obvious representative democracy is democratic.

Second, using the very phrase "the tyranny of the majority" should be obvious why there's a problem and I wonder why I even have to mention it. It's statements such as this that are constantly, repeatedly heard from "wonderful" leaders of totalitarian regimes. If you want it explained more, history has shown that gradually civilizations move from 'kings' to democracy in advanced states of their existence. First instinctive animal rule of the toughest animal/homo sapiens, then reason kicks in for more "humane" states of politics. It is obvious the majority is never 100% right. But it is also obvious it's the best there is when all the alternatives require totalitarianism to a smaller or larger extend. --Leladax 20:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I support democracy over other systems, but I think your reading too much into the statement above, its simply expressing mpore than one view on representative democracy, whereas you seem to wish for the only view to be that representative democracy is always good. As I said I support democracy, but I culd make a case against it, and it isnt neccessarily the evolution of politics, it is simply the line that has been taken increasingly in the 20th centuary after the defeat of facism, and is still far from being accepted by all (only westerners really) as a perfect form of government. Democracies have often proven to be weak, and whether you may like it or not dictatorship and oligarchy have made many progressive changes in this world of ours. (we woudlnt be speaking this language if it hadnt). The reason democracy is mainly supported now in the West is not because it 'evolved' but because living standards are high and we wish to change little in our countries (compartively with poorer ones), therefore we support demoracy because we wish to keep ourselves balanced in the place we are in. Others (with some evidence to support them) view democracies as weak, as many are, and democracy often means rule by the majority, which in turn means that if a selfish or uneducated populace turns out to vote at elections, then the country could be in seriosu problems. If democacy is so perfect and the natural evolution, then there would not have been such a regression in the 20th centuary, and Weimer Germany (the most liberal democracy and arguably the most democratic country in the World of the time) would not have given way to dictatorship.

Also America is no more a candidate for being the first demofcacry than any other country listed, and I dont know why it is refered to as such. Other countries had popular voting, although exluding wwomen, just as the Americans, so I dont know why it is classed as the first liberal democracy, it is not, as seen by the list presented. I get irritated when I see patriotic American jargen plastered over wikipedia.Rob.G.P.A 01:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

A point I would also like to make is true democacy is shaky, and most countries today dont achieve absolute democracy or even close to it. In the UK (where I am from) the idea of democracy is obviously uninspiring (therefore not an 'evolution'). Only 40% of people turn out to elections, which creates a 40% minority, of that 40% minority (usually better-off middle and buisness class) the party with the most votes gets in, it is not neccessary to have a majority of that 40% minority (your still following  :)?). So in most elections in reality you could have a party representing 10-15% of the population.

That party is solely elected by unproportional representation (i.e. the number of MP's elected to constituencies), and the people have basically no say in government policy after that point, with no referendums or plebicites, and no election of the leader of that party (the Prime minister) who has more power over the way the country is run compartievly than the president of the USA has over how the USA is run.

SO basically in the UK we only live in a nominal democracy, and it does not suite everyone. In some senses a popular supported dicatorship, like Hitler's (who had the highest vote at the time) is actually more democratic than the multi party system we have today. But I still am going to throw in my chips with democracy, for all the good it does me -_-.Rob.G.P.A 12:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think much bias towards democracies is shown above in addition to general falsehoods about its supposed 'advanced' state. Tyranny of the majority is very real as all democracies, whether 'limited' by parchment constitutions or not, eliminate volunteerism in the minority. --Thorsmitersaw 9 November 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 16:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Expansion of criticism

I found the criticisms section rather lacking. Objections to demcoracy from many historical points of view such as Jefferson, Bastiat, Calhoun, Rothbard would be an excellent addition. A brief mention of democracies failures and criticisms found within "Democracy: the god that failed" by Hans Herman Hoppe, a leading market anarchist and economist who studied under Rothbard would be a excellent reference or mention to include. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorsmitersaw (talk • contribs) 16:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism is of course subjective. Going back into the history has us looking back to a time when issues such as lobby, media and immunity were unheard of compaired to the current model. This section therefore comes down to what is a fair description of the problems. Finn is a world authourity given his work in equitable obligations, fiduciary duties. Anyone tampering with his work simply has no idea what those issues are and should leave it to others who do --WingateChristopher 22:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you read this under the current form of the criticism section?: "Modern criticism of democracy comes mainly from theocrats, fascists, monarchists, and communists. For debates on specific forms of democracy, see the appropriate article, such as Liberal democracy, Direct democracy, Polyarchy, Sortition, etc." If you consider that neutral, your a damn fool Additionally, I do not care what sort of work someone has done on obligation and authority, criticism comes from the fact that democracy IS authoritarian from anarchists of several individualist stripes, from minarchists, and "classical" liberals, etc. A fair description of a system must include the thoughts of those who have no favor for it as well. Otherwise it is more biased typical wikipedia nonsense . -Thorsmitersaw

That's right. --Crashtip (talk) 13:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

18th and 19th centuries

When discussing the contribution of life on the American frontier to democracy, it should be mentioned that this is a theory, however widely accepted. The point of the theory is that Americans on the frontier, isolated from cental authority, developed democratic and egalitarian communities, but also showed brutality toward aboriginal people, and lacked adequate judicial procedures. Supposedly, this new type of democracy influenced American attitudes to democracy, individuality and egalitarianism. This process did not occur in Canada, Australia, South America, or Russia, which also had new settlements, because the settlements remained under central control and had no need to develop new systems for maintaining order. Incidentally, the term "frontier", which means border, generally refers to the American frontier only.

I think it would be helpful to include these points. --The Four Deuces 22:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There are 'some' aboriginals in Canada who would not accept that statement that Canada's experience with the aboriginals, the immigrants, those at the bottom of the social ladder were not treated well, or at least justly.

(we generalize for the sake of arguement and ignore the world of half-truths. For example, the government has at times given money to these same 'aboriginals' and some within those given money squandered it on themselves and did not give any to their fellow aboriginals. Happens today.

Yes the American experience or Canadian experience was bad, but who was responsible...? That is a difficult one to call.—

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 22:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

SERIOUS POV problem!

"Modern criticism of democracy comes mainly from theocratics, fascists, monarchists, and anarchists" Whaaaat????

Democracy is not the rule in all the world, and it is seen as obvious mostly in the United States!

There has been a lot of criticism about democracy since it was created, to the point that it probably deserves its own article rather than a simplistic paragraph. Sdistefano 14:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Cause? = Ultramarine.--67.58.254.68 (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. Many people living in democracies, have in the past questioned the 'democratic nature' of the system. Seems the 'boys' clubs want to protect their game, and do so.

The American and Canadian system while they preach the gospel of being democratic, a critical examination of what they are, and what they should be suggests they are not 100% democratic, but rather 20-40%, creating a dictatorial position. Half and half.

The observation is that "the People' get a free vote but 'the system' takes the power from 'the people' and gives it to one person. This is far from a direct democracy, far, far from it. Even if you allowed a council of three or more to vote, which happens on some municipal councils, is a positive step, but where is the 'link' between 'the people' and the exeuctive vote ?

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 18:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is disputed

Why is there a tag saying "the neutrality of this article is disputed"? This article has greatly improved. It remains propelt controversial, but the prior blatent pov biasis has been minimized. Should this tag remain? I think not. I plan to delete it if there is no objection. Raggz (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see my point above. The frontier theory is quoted as fact, then inaccurately described. The article implies that while democracy developed in America, Australia and Canada were comparable to tsarist Russia, which is not part of the theory at all. --The Four Deuces (talk) 10:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Good points. This article was so much worse that it looks great to me. What if we just drop the frontier theory? Is there resistance to editing it as you suggest? Raggz (talk) 11:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I would delete the theory altogether. The article is factual and does not attempt to explain why or how democracy developed except in this one case. --The Four Deuces (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"Modern criticism of democracy comes mainly from theocrats, fascists, monarchists, and communists. For debates on specific forms of democracy, see the appropriate article, such as Liberal democracy, Direct democracy, Polyarchy, Sortition, etc." If you consider that neutral, your a damn fool -Thorsmitersaw

Interpreting Churchill's comments: The logic of false democracies and inconsistencies.

Some considerations...as to if the current discussion presents this particular perspective.

LOGIC INCONSISTENCIES.

Often the statement by Churchill, the second is taken as gospel truth; this is incorrect.

The strongest argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter. -Sir Winston Churchill Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried. -Sir Winston Churchill

Okay by examining the two and reading between the lines, it is somewhat leading to the realization that 'the average voter' could not lead a democracy. The second statement does not actually compare all the others to a 'democracy', for the 'ones tried' relative to Churchill's comments are not so identified, but assumed.

ACTUAL OBERSERVATIONS

While it is noted that 'republics' are some sort of derivation, some 'different level' of real democracies, the intention was to 'protect the minority from the majority'.

Problem is that some so called democracies are in fact not protecting the majority from the minority; false democracies.

Case in point look at the Ontario provincial governmental system election. In the last provincial election, Dalton McGuinty's Liberal party won 75% of the seats with 37% of the vote. He actually gets 'dictatorship ability. Balance this with the fact that in runnning for the leadership, McGuinty ran 4th in the first two elections; they use run-offs here.

Just to bring to your attention, this reality, and hopefully someone might be able to ensure that 'this far removed level' of democracy, is still considered to be a 'democracy',...perhaps we need another label ?

Happy New Year....! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesarjbsquitti (talk • contribs) 18:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Opps...

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 18:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Caesar Squitti, you seem too intelligent to write here. Perhaps you could improve this article, yet it wouldn't last long. There are fanatics who monitor this page, notably Special:Contributions/Ultramarine but others as well.

If you improve this article your improvements will be undone by teenagers and ideological fanatics. Ironically this article shows how a tiny minority of propagandists can subvert democracy. It also shows how the idea "democracy" itself has become another authoritarian ideology that tolerates no criticism. --67.58.254.68 (talk) 09:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I was a believing in the utopia of our system...educated in the political science of this system, and believed it up until a few years ago. It became apparent that the Prime Minister did as he or she liked, with no connection to 'the people'.

If it took me decades to realize this, I would suspect that most of the other younger writers will take some time to understand that this is not a democracy, not a real one. I know I was one of them.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 15:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as the Canadian political system goes, it was created, in 1867, by the British, as Canada was part of the colonies of England. In fact one of the first Govenor Generals of Canada was the son of the Queen of England. The Canadian parliamentary system was a system to enshrine political control to the Monarchs of England, while still appeasing the 'free vote' system that most people falsely believe is a democracy.

Its like the new 'washerless faucets' they don't have washers, they use a 'grommet' which is another different name for 'washer'.

We have the word 'democracy' and a critical analysis will see that the "demon" in and of words that corrupted this concept...

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 18:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

---

"Democracy for the Few" May I add the reference to the book “Democracy for the Few” by Michael Parenti because (1) it shows that America is not a Democracy like we’re taught, and (2) it proves that America assassinated Socialists behind the scenes to force all attempts at “social justice & equality” to fail (Chile, etc) which was done to force all nations into wage-slavery which is slavery; (3) it shows how America hates equality and justice for all people instead of just a few rich people; (4) it shows how the most welfare given is to corporations and the rich people, not the poorest who need the financial help; (5) it shows how the rich & corporations pay little or no taxes while the poorest people pay the most in taxes; (6) it shows the power of the media & how they help keep people in slavery for wages, (7) how mostly poor people are sent to prisons but their crimes are much smaller than crimes committed by the richest people who mostly get suspended sentences; & many other very important facts. I’d also like to add a ref to “The Rich and Super-Rich” by Ferdinand Lundberg which shows the same things. May I add them to this article in “references”? Thank you. 69.228.231.62 (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticize any component

It becomes apparent that many 'topics'within Wikipedia, have behind them decades of research that is 'black or white' thinking, that is that 'it' is all good or all bad.

Everything, except God, if there is one, would be perfect. So why all this 'resistence' to a critical discussion of any topic.

Take for example water.

The foundation of life, yet if out of balance can create death.

If we are to take this topic and elaborate from it, all topics should have a positive and negative dimension to them; the key is to provide some type of analytical balanced presentation.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 22:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In 'discriminating' between 'different types' or 'levels' of precious stones, they are judged relative to a scale, ie diamonds have a hardness of 10 (?), garnet 7 -7.5, etc.etc..

So perhaps a 'scale of comparision' would be useful in evaluating 'the degree' of democracy. Ie direct democracy would be a 10, a pareliamentary system is a 1.

While they are all gemstones, or democracies, they may need more clarification...?

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 17:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Three important factors about so called democracies.

1. The vote required to elect a person. Ie the Vatican has just implemented a 2/3 majority. Canada's system is first past the post which is 100 / number of candidates plus one. So with 4 running in the election, the number is 25% plus one.

2. The ability of every elected individual to represent 'the people' that elected them. In Canada, there is very little of this, especially in majority governemnts.

3. Recall procedure. If 'the people' don't like what the government representatives are doing, they can 'recall' them. Some systems have this, others don't. Canada does not.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 17:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)