Talk:Democracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / Vital (Rated C-class)
WikiProject iconThis article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Support-Bargaining[edit]

The theory of support-bargaining suggests that the systems of government recognised as 'democratic' are better understood as processes in which support is assembled in groups and organisations through support-bargaining.[supportbargain 1] In political support-bargaining, parties formulate policies and proposals that will attract support. People give their support to parties in accordance with their acceptance or rejection of the policies and proposals on offer.[supportbargain 2] An electoral system, understood as an artificial support-bargaining structure, is used to facilitate the emergence of a party with majority support in a legislature.[supportbargain 3] In contrast with democratic theory, which has difficulty reconciling parties with popular rule, the theory gives a central role to political parties, as the most powerful agents of support-bargaining systems.[supportbargain 4]


Support-bargaining theory also draws attention to the importance of finance for political parties. The assembly of support across a nation for the same policies involves substantial costs. Democratic theory has no understanding of parties and consequently no understanding of the importance of finance in political processes.[supportbargain 5] (end addition)

  1. ^ Spread, Patrick (2004). Getting It Right: Economics and the Security of Support, Sussex, Book Guild, pp. 8, 127-9. Spread, Patrick (2008). Support-Bargaining: The Mechanics of Democracy Revealed, Sussex, Book Guild, pp. 2, 39, 50-52, 406-13.
  2. ^ Spread (2004), p. 114. Spread (2008), pp. 39-40.
  3. ^ Spread, Patrick (1984). A Theory of Support and Money Bargaining, London. Macmillan, pp. 203-09. Spread (2008), pp. 44-49.
  4. ^ Spread (1984), pp. 204-05. Spread (2008), pp. 411-12.
  5. ^ Spread (2004), pp. 141-3. Spread (2008), pp. 2-3, 66-68.

No statement about Karantanian Democracy?? (as the birth of real Democracy?)[edit]

The old Karantanian Democracy was called Rota (in Latin: Institutio Sklavenika Lex) which included election of the prince and later dukes "in the name of people". All women and men have had free will to elect their leader. His descendants weren't necessary new rulers over the land.

Here is a short description of it. Karantanian democracy inspired Bodin and later American president Thomas Jefferson who wrote American Declaration of Independence.

http://www.hervardi.com/images/spomenik_ustolicevanje.gif http://www.globalpolitician.com/print.asp?id=698

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Democracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Democracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

New section in, criticisms-of, needed...[edit]

the criticisms-of, section, should have consultation-problems, or something meaning that in a single-word -


Consultations, with your voters, those you represent, is MEANT, to be a critical part, of what is/was to've been what got someone in a elected / representative position, in the first place...

think about it... representation.

in other words... of what?


when consultation fails, you do not HAVE, any kind of rule coming FROM, the people, if what they actually want, is not being systemmatically determined / collected.


here in Australia, we have had for decades, and STILL HAVE,

gross mis-representation via individuals and groups in the media, when samplings of 'the public' , are claimed, but the checks and balances WERE whome was doing the sampling, even remotely properly done.

including outright incentives to vote one way or another , TIMING of a sampling, just AFTER paid policical commercials on TV, radio, etc.


active BRIBERY, to encourage radio-show hosts and TV directors / producers, to buy / produce particular programming BEFORE , a sampling,.. etc.


the difference between what the australian PEOPLE actually think, about regulation and enforcement of law, in relation to cracking down on this, and ONLY ALLOWING legitimate sampling...

could not be MORE DIFFERENT, from what is used politically, especially in the media.


I am sure, similar failures exist all over the world.

perhaps one day, the PRIORITY of making sure such does not become RELIEED UPON, like a drug to an addict, by party-first politicians... will one day be recognised as MORE IMPORTANT that what is GUISED AS FREE SPEECH.


but until then, when the truly despicable inamongst those who call gutter-media free-speech, pretend they do not understand the difference...

we are at least here in australia, in a position of not being able to PROOVE, that the actors pretending their sons & daughters a part of it, ever have to work, make a choice , etc... contextually TO, this particular 'belief' , that it is all simply free speech, etc...


since one cannot neccessarily proove, every individual claiming such innocence of-awareness , neccessarily does, short of a lie-detector , etc.



So essentially , we SOMEtimes get lucky, with being able to proove someone IS aware, of the failings of improper-sampling ...



but systematically, the PRIORITY...

is just not there, legally, nor the commitment to enforcement.

while the police are busy with they are normally having to deal with...

no money gets spent on MORE enforcement... and both major parties/co-alitions, become ADDICTS, to the method.



There is by comparison, in my experience , almost TOTAL , cyncicsm, and DENAIL, of such claims of non-awareness, and also total rejection, of the too-expensive argument, when at least, it comes to people being willing to contribute and be a part of enforcement, at no cost/employment.

Volunteering, or contributing to it, with their own free time, ANONYMOUSLY... etc

in countries with no welfare systems, that might be different, and many might do ANYthing to get food on the table... that leads to enough-suckers, soto speak...

understandable tho dissapointing...

but when there has been a relatively long period of welfare, at least during my whole life... people feel less URGENTLY unable to say no, to jobs that would demand however they describe the terms they use, for what a particular position needs to be, etc.

their private opinions, DIFFER, from any rationalizations, they would maintain on a offical / business / etc... level.



So from my perspective, it is NOT, all bad news, pardon the pun - if people would be willing to vote for more enforcement upon the media, to AT LEAST this critically corrupted sampling, failure...

then where is the representation?

i therefore do NOT CONSIDER MYSELF AS LIVING IN A DEMOCRACY, dsepite what you might have heard, about Australia.

we voted in same sex marraige the other day... but i still would not, because of the DISSMISSING of importance, that we pretend, others do not notice.


i know, you do, but many do not think it through properly, and the potential of what others-might-think ... about us, gets lost in 'only' , potentials of perception and opinion, etc.


'only', opinion , gets used as an excuse, in complciit INACTION.

and it is the REPONSIBILITY, of a human being under human rights law, not to fail in such, so i don't mind saying, sorry for Murdoch, and all he worsesns...

...but the probelm is much, much larger, than that.


CONSULTATION, is such a base... initial... 1st-step ... in what one assumes gets done right...

that it is not difficult, to find failure of it being done improperly, at every turn.




why then, should it be assumed proceedural, when it is being actively choked, and filtered, by the unwilling to work with others, by the we-know-best , dissasociatives , turning a blind eye to their own disregardings?




democracy is meant to be a process of collecting ALL's, opinions and needs and whatnot...

not a WINNING, of only some's.


only someTIMEs, will interests clash.

when something is agreed-upon, it is often out of the media, boring, etc, to some.


that is NOT, what democratic process, is all about... only-who-won.


it is meant to be a cooperative process by default, or ordinarily...

and ONLY, when something cannot be agreed upon, or only when not everyone's legitmate needs can be met, might it need to.


instead of that, we have REVERTED to a more base primative social-resolution method, for something that is meant to be PROCEEDURALLY, more advanced.



while some of the ciriticsms, say ; told-you-so!!

they do not neccessarily bring attention BACK, to it's using-communication, using collection, FUNDAMENTAL PROCESS.


so surely consultation, SHOULD be a focus-point of its failures / a WHERE... of what,.. fails.

Vurrath (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I am interested in adding to the wikipedia page a section on "open democracy," a new form of democracy promoted by political philosopher Helene Landemore. Would anyone be interested in helping me? Sanguinestate (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)