Talk:Democracy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

This is an archive of 2002, 2003 discussion

Origin of democratic system

Is there any documental proof that could be referred to to determine the origin of the democratic system? There is proof about the use of a democratic system in Athens. Zingarello

Confusing paragraphs

Democracies can be divided into different types, based on a number of different distinctions. The most important distinction is between direct democracy and representative democracy. Limited democracy is far more common that direct democracy.

Direct democracy (sometimes also called "pure democracy") is a system in which all people are allowed to influence policy making by means of a direct vote on any particular issue. This regime, as defined in Athenian democracy, has the meaning of election for decisions, NOT election for persons that are about to decide.

Republic or Representative democracy (or indirect democracy, parliamentary democracy) , is a system in which the people (or citizens) democratically elect government officials who then make decisions on behalf of the citizens. Of course this political regime has nothing to do with Athenian democracy. Ancien Athenians will consider "representative dmocracy" as a time limited oligarchy.

Essentially, a representative democracy is a form of time-limited oligarchy in which the democratic process is followed to choose leaders, while the leaders may act with or against the majority opinion during their term of office. Representative democracies (also called republics in the 18th century) are usually organized so that the people elect a number of leaders, who then make decisions based on another democratic process. In the United States and the Roman Republic, for example, laws are made by a majority vote of Senators who were in turn chosen by a majority vote of the electorate.

There is no such a thing as "tyranny of the majority" in a pure (direct) democracy. for example no member can be punished to death because this will result the loss of his vote.

These paragraphs confuse and intermingle two distinct concepts: 1) whether decisions are taken directly or through elected representatives, and 2) whether "majority rules" or there exists a supreme law (such as a constitution) restricting what the majority may do to any minority by means of the government. These need to be kept distinct. I'm not going to rewrite it myself because this article seems to be controversial and I'm a newbie.

I'd encourage you to try, anyway. But review the other democracy articles first, to ensure you end up with this in the right place. EofT, August 1, 2003

146.124.102.84's POV edits

146.124.102.84 made several edits which are extremely POV, essentially saying that democracy = pure democracy and indirect democracy = republic. Example:

Ancien Athenians will consider "representative dmocracy" as a time limited oligarchy. The main difference here is that the loss of vote can be voted, as Hitler did and kill all his oponents. The Republic is a regime that, in the worst case, can lead society to Fascism and Rasism.

Therefore I'm reverting to version before 146's edits.

146, why don't you take a look at NPOV before editing? Arvindn 09:57 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

---

Constitution

Majority and Average rule defines a contitution. And this constitution may define if representatives are allowed. Constitution is not something stable, it may change from times to times. Only the voting rights of the citizens are respected, and this is the only thing that cannot change in a real democracy. Average rule is this: there is a force that wants to go norht, and another that wants to go west, so the result is north-west. Majority rule apples only in cases the average rule does not apply.

---

Anon's announcement

Ok guys, I stop posting because Mavercick the Fascist is going to bann my IP address. I know that wiki rubish is not democracy, but wikipedia is not wiki also, as long as Maverick the Fascist exist and banns IP addreses.

I am waiting for an excuse and an argument of why do you believe that in a real democracy, altering people's votes (killing) is allowed, and why the "daimonocracy" that alters people's votes (killing) can still be named Democracy. --146.124.141.250, Jan 23, 2003

First and foremost we are an encyclopedia. We are also very serious about our NPOV policy. You were violating that policy and insisting on filling this article with your own POV. That is not acceptable. It is also disruptive to others trying to get good work done - thus it slows down the progress of the project. Wiki is a means to an end here, it ain't the main show. There are plenty of pure wiki communities out there - but even they ban persisant trolls. --mav

So you name your fascism, neutral point of view? who are you to decide whats the neutral point of view? You are intentionally killing the name of Democracy here, I dont know for what reason. I invite you to an open and fair discussion, in www.ingenuitas.org. Maverick, I am warning you, you are not going anywhere with this attitude. Come to yourself now! --146.124.141.250, Jan 23, 2003

If you think NPOV is fascism then you need to play somewhere else. --mav

If you think that lies, like calling Athenian Democracy a representative Democracy is a neutral point of view, then you do not deserve to be an operator that ban IP addreses.

Then why is everybody reverting your changes then? --mav

Not everybody! YOU are reverting my changes! Lets put my changes into a vote if you dare! --146.124.141.250, March 20, 2003

---

What about include information about democracy and civilizations ( i.e. arabic culture and democracy).

---

Added a Failures of democracy section. Needs feed-back and sistematization.

---

Weird edit

Somehow, all the links were eliminated by this edit.[1]

I guess the edit was not mal-intended, but some passages seem to be deleted, too, which makes me concerned a bit (though not all the deletions look unreasonable). And anyway, the overall 'flow' improved quite a bit, I think. I'm hoping someone can work on this to include ome of the useful info. from the past versions. Thanks. (and sorry not volunteering for doing it!) Tomos 09:05 Apr 5, 2003 (UTC)

Statement removed

The following statement is removed:

In some countries, their Constitution intentionally designs a representative rather than a direct democracy in part to avoid the danger of the tyranny of the majority.

It would be interesting if it wasn't so vague. /Johan

---

Moved paragraph

I've moved this paragraph, which seem to be more like advocacy than description to me:

Liquid Democracy (see external links) is a combination of Representive and Direct Democracy in which every person can vote directly for the laws, but they can also, if they wish, transfer their vote to a proxy who may make the decisions of specific issues for them. No government yet uses this method.

-- Ruhrjung 06:49 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

If you don't like the paragraph of liquid democracy, edit it, but don't delete it. There must be a description of what liquid democracy is.

Why must there? -- Ruhrjung 15:20 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Why not? Democracy must link the entries of all kinds of democracy, like liquid democracy or participatory democracy.

The point is that this "Liquid Democracy" (capitalized as proper name) is advocated only by a small group of people,and it has a specific definition coming only from those people, and thus to advertise that view may well be to skew our overall view of democracy away from the neutral standard we espouse. EofT, August 1, 2003

Personally, I think it is a form of semi-direct democracy but I leave that up to the advocates to decide. EofT, August 1, 2003

Sortition

So where can I sneak in a link to sortition? Going by the definitions here it is neither direct nor indirect democracy, but it is a form of democracy almost by definition, since it was a major aspect of the original Athenian democracy. It could go under "alternative models" but since it was there at the start is it right to call it "alternative"? -- pm67nz

Good point. Is it semi-direct democracy? participatory democracy? consensus democracy? anticipatory democracy? deliberative democracy? Or just plain old grassroots democracy? You have plenty of choices. I am sure you can explain it somewhere. EofT

Well it has been called Statistical Democracy. But not very often. After a couple of months I think I have it figured - the definition of direct democracy given here isn't ideal. There is nothing in the definition of "direct" that says all citizens have to be involved. It just means that there are no intermediaries, that citizens vote on issues rather than officers, so I claim that any democractic system that isn't indirect is direct. -- Pm67nz 07:47, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

who needs democracy when masonics rule?

---

Unencyclopedical quotes?

I reckon the quotes are unencyclopediacal (sp?!), and the GWB one is only marginally on topic, but I won't rush in to deleting them. Once you start adding quotes like that where do you stop - I know a few more that aren't on this page but I don't want to start a quote war. Comments? -- Pm67nz 07:47, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The GWB quote should go, it adds nothing to the article. Winston Churchill's quote is useful, IMO, because it does pithily some up why, despite its failings, democracy remains popular. --Robert Merkel 04:46, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)