Talk:Direct democracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Politics (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Direct democracy:

Removed opinion about open-source governance[edit]

It's not self-evident that allowing people to contribute as much or as little as they desire "strains the definition of democracy". The freedom to participate as much or as little as one likes is a natural element of democracy, and there's no reason that this should apply differently to open-source ideas of governance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.205.176.200 (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, since many choose not to participate in representative democracy, either. StuRat (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

E-Democracy does not equal Direct Democracy and Vice Versa[edit]

I would argue against merging the 'e-democracy' and 'direct democracy' pages. It's natural for them both to refer to one another, but they're still separate. It's not like we're printing a book here and we don't want it to get too heavy. Settdigger —Preceding undated comment added 04:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; the concepts deserve their own separate pages. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


Direct Democracy in Switzerland[edit]

There is a video about Direct Democracy in Switzerland: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9Ei50c2c1I You should maybe ad this video to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.83.204.16 (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Direct democracy in the United States[edit]

The United States subsection is under the "Examples" subsection, but only mentions one example in the very last line, New England town meetings. The rest of the several (i.e., too many) paragraphs are bogged down by debates over federalism and Hamiltonian versus Jeffersonian democracy, which are irrelevant to this article (and certainly to this section) and weight the article a bit much towards the US-centric. Any ideas about how we can tighten this section and make it less meandering and strange? --TimothyDexter (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2014[edit]

contemporary movements ++ :

Electronic Democracy Party Electronic Democracy Party in Turkey

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Democracy_Party)

newly founded party currently in general assembly, created 26.11.2014 QHIEICHI (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Very misleading paragraph[edit]

Quoting from the article: "Most countries that are representative democracies allow for three forms of political action that provide limited direct democracy: referendum (plebiscite), initiative, and recall."

How do these countries "allow" for such action? How many countries have actually conducted intiatives? How many countries who are representative democracies have actually recalled their leaders in a referendum? The answer is "very little" and "none". Elections could be thought of as "recalling" a representative but they serve a dual function for "electing" a new one. This is not a pure "recall" action as say, in California.

How many representative democracies conducted mass polling at the initiative of the public and not representatives? This means a poll that is objected to by the representatives? That is the real meaning of initiative in a direct democracy as the procedure is designed to go over the heads of the representatives.

All in all this paragraph is blatantly wrong. It makes it sound as if all representative democracies have these means and they most certainly do not. A better phrasing should be:

On very rare occasions representative democracies will use procedures which are considered direct democratic in nature such as referendums and initiatives. These are usually initiated by the representative government and do not allow, as in a direct democracy, to poll the public on matters where the interest of the government conflicts with that of the population. The idea of regular interval elections could also be seen as implementing the direct democratic tool of "recall" but is more limited in nature as it is only conducted in specified intervals, does not allow the public to recall representatives at any time and in mid office term and is designed to elect new representatives and not only recall existing ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veltzer (talkcontribs) 21:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)