Talk:Democracy/Archive 11

Questionable statement and reference

"Nevertheless, statistical research shows that the fall of Communism and the increase in the number of democratic states were accompanied by a sudden and dramatic decline in total warfare, interstate wars, ethnic wars, revolutionary wars, and the number of refugees and displaced people.[23] "

This statement and reference seem to be to be highly questionable. I am sure that there is some rule on wikipedia about using aol websites in a blatantly obvious way to espouse what may turn out to be a factually incorrect statement. Certainly, the sentence is worthy of several references if it is true.

Nukemason 20:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

As noted in the link: The following charts provide both contextual and dynamic bases for evaluating the quality of peace. They are constructed from information covering all countries in the world with populations greater than 500,000 persons in 2005 (161 countries in 2005). The theoretical foundations for the systemic peace perspective are explained in Monty G. Marshall, Third World War: System, Process, and Conflict Dynamics (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999). The methodology for measuring armed conflicts is explained in greater detail in Monty G. Marshall, "Measuring the Societal Impact of War," in Fen Osler Hampson and David M. Malone, eds., From Reaction to Conflict Prevention: Opportunities for the UN System (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2002). Further analyses of conflict trends are published in Monty G. Marshall and Ted Robert Gurr, Peace and Conflict 2005: A Global Survey of Armed Conflicts, Self-Determination Movements, and Democracy (College Park, MD: Center for International Development and Conflict Management, 2005).

These are all noted researchers in the field. I have also added a citation to the report: Peace and Conflict 2005: A Global Survey of Armed Conflicts, Self-Determination Movements, and Democracy. Monty G. Marshall and Ted Robert Gurr. [1]Ultramarine 20:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

Given the criticisms listed in other forms of government on Wikipedia (e.g. Communism, Anarchism), the amount of criticism for democracy is lacking. This article's criticism section is no more than two lines long, and vague at best. It says to "see the appropriate article" where there is none. Is this the result of deliberate vandalism or has this section been given substantial neglect? 68.93.141.180 22:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Since "democracy" is a diffuse concept, it is difficult to find general criticisms. However, if there are critical views that would apply to all forms, including both socialist democracy, liberal democracy, anarchist democracy, direct democracy, sortition, and so on, then please include them.Ultramarine 23:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The previous poster is responsible for the policing of much of the criticism, which is why we don't see much of it. Facts which cast democracy in a less positive light are simply wiped (deleted) by this user (though others may do this kind of vandalism also without my observation of it) within hours of being posted . Now, The purpose of this work really isn't as much for criticism as for bringing the facts on the subject to light, regardless of how individual users (like the one above) may feel about those facts, which he conveniently and incorrectly calls opinions as a justification for removing them. In a way, every fact is very highly correlated opinion, but that detracts from the real issue and the purpose of this Wikipedia project. Anyhow, the criticism observation is a very good observation which underscores the severity of the problem facing this article for the last several years. Thank you for identifying this issue with Democracy for us.--Landen99 19:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I just visited this article to get a glimpse on criticism of the concept of Democracy and instead found a heated discussion page. Normally, every wp article on a controversial subject (as political concepts necessarily are) contains a proper section about criticisms (and basic lines of rebuttals), usually with a link to an article called "criticisms of ...". I would strongly suggest adding this sections for the following reasons:

• the current article mentions almost no critique of the concept of democracy, rendering the lengthy discussion in the "Separating criticism" section of this discussion page completely ridiculous.
• pointing to criticism in articles about specific forms of democracy can't be enough, since these are logically referring to critique of the form in question. What's more, the quality of these articles differs greatly, and all but one of those that i just quick-checked don't have a specific "criticism"-section either.
• readers should be able to find criticism of the concept without reading 20 sub-articles, as this in effect comes down to "hiding" critique.
• not mentioning critique in an article of this kind creates a clear case of POV, even if the rest of the article may be of high quality.Malc82 21:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The title itself is POV, as it uses a different criterion from articles of other political currents. The "criticism" section should deal specifically with the main arguments against the political current in question and present some notes of rebuttal. The current title suggests that the section is open for a constructive criticism of this ideology, but not for the possibility of its refutation. As the rest of the article should already present the "advantages" of the said subject of the article, this section is necessary precisely to deal with the claims of disadvantages. The intellectual debate of whether democracy is the best form of government should never be closed. I propose that we change the name of the section to "criticism" and expand it with that in mind.Maziotis 10:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If there are any arguments that apply to all forms of democracy, sorition and representative, socialist and capitalist, statist and non-statist, and so on, then they should of course be added. However, I think it will be difficult to find any since the concept "democracy" is so broad. They will probably be more or less faith based, like Divine Law argument for some form of monarchy or theocracy.Ultramarine 10:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Maziotis. While i'm currently not deep enough in the scientific debate to write (and reference) this myself, there definitely is a lot of criticism along lines like "Why should majority vote be better than other forms?", various tyranny of the majority fears, "utopian assumptions" or "lowest common denominator" etc., as well as rebuttals. Some repeatedly deleted additions (e.g. the Pynchon quote) already went in this direction. That some criticisms may not fully apply to every single form of the democracy concept shouldn't be reason enough to let them out altogether, since this wouldn't be the same criterion used for comparable articles. The socialism article for example also mentions critique about equal distribution, which isn't part of every socialist concept. Malc82 12:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

These criticisms hardly apply to many forms of democracy like sortition, consensus democracy, anarchist democracy, or "democracies" having a vanguard party since the people, for now, are too stupid to understand what they really want. The unspoken assumption is that democracy is liberal democracy and that article has a very long section with advantages and disadvantages, including, for example, a section on "tyranny of the majority". The socialism article mostly include criticisms applicable to all forms of socialism and does not include for example all of the Criticisms of Marxism.Ultramarine 16:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"The definition of democracy is simply the rule of the people" as stated in the first section of this article. All of the critique i mentioned does address this basic concept, and this basic concept is what this article is about. That there are forms trying to solve some of the criticised problems doesn't mean they shouldn't be mentioned when discussing the concept. Actually, it may be necessary to understand the rationale behind some forms. Btw, I would argue that states with vanguard parties aren't democratic at all and consensus democracy is rather a dream than a practical political concept. Sortition isn't exempt from the mentioned criticisms, because minority position will likely face the same problems. What is Anarchist-democracy? There is no article about that concept as far as i know there is absolutely no common position of anarchists about majority vote.Malc82 17:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No, majority voting does not apply to sortition, consensus democracy, or vanguard party democracy. An real-world example of an anarchist democracy would be some form of democracy in a tribe, which can be majority decision, but also for example consensus. Your personal views regarding what democracy is, which seem to be that only voting systems are really democracies, is not shared by the proponents of other systems, who often proclaim that only their system is really democratic.Ultramarine 17:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Editing abuses and article reversions

When editing this article, please do so in an objective and rational way with particular attention for preserving the value of the contributions from the Wiki community. Please carefully consider any material removed so that "the baby isn't thrown out with the bath water," as the common saying goes. Instead of removing all contributions by an author, please instead remove only those things which are not true and cannot be refined or cited. Legitimate facts lacking citations should have citations added, and not simply be removed because it doesn't suit your political agendas or biases. We need objective, rational editing which focuses on improving every aspect/detail instead of blanket destruction of valuable contributions. Instead of citing names of specific abusers, I'll simply note that this most especially applies to some of the most active authors/editors of this Democracy article. Please watch the more zealous and frequent "contributors" to this article carefully for reversions. --Landen99 19:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The particular author from whom I have observed the greatest abuse of editing powers just removed ALL of my contributions (note the difference between my time stamps here reveals just how quickly he polices this article -- so much for the liberties of free speech inherent in a liberal democratic-type project like Wikipedia) and added a small section which reflects practically nothing of my contributions. Fortunately, time does not diminish the power to reverse his vandalism of this article. He added:

"Limited voter turnout - Some see a problem with limited voter turnout since not all eligible voter participate in the political process. Get out the vote may increase voter turnout but is may be advocated by special interest groups. Some therefore argue for compulsory voting and several nations have this system."

In the first place, nothing was mentioned about compulsory voting, and no reference to such systems was intended (there certainly lacks any references or citations on that matter, if it is to be kept in this article, too). Second the gammar is horrible, but that only shows how little attention was given to this revision, which was intended to appease the need for the facts previously added. It totally ignores the various mechanisms inherent in democracies (which actually work against their purpose of advancing the power of the people to rule themselves) typically employed by the various political factions in order to increase their power in government at the expense of the rule and will of the people (the basis for the democracy, which literally means from Latin: "people rule"). The paramount consideration of the foundational role of "limited voter turnout" in the assertion of the rule of the people (by the name/claim of democracy) is totally neglected. Perhaps a major lack of understanding in the facts and contributions being provided to this article stands as the primary reason for the abuses which I have been citing throughout the years on these discussion pages. --Landen99 19:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Source added, expanded material.Ultramarine 19:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed a slight improvement in the material added, but also observed continued disregard for the contributions of fellow Wiki authors and thus the Wiki community, in general. BTW, would you, the Democracy article sentinel, stop capitalizing the ".. , In" from my correction to ".. , in"?

Perhaps the following will clarify the issue you may be taking with these contributions: I am NOT advocating "comppulsory voting," nor have I ever advocated such. Frankly, I have little interest in the subject of "comppulsory voting" as it seems to violate the liberties protected in a liberal democracy, and inherent in the foundational ideas of real democracy, the rule of the people (without political inequality). I'm only noting that a LOT of the people have no voice in government, regardless of their motives for refusing to participate, and that this is an integral aspect of modern democracy which actual erodes its claim to reflect the will of the people (a large part of them having no voice). I have my own solutions, like making the government's power contingent on its ability to obtain the free consent of the majority of its entire population/eligible voters, which essential embodies the very definition of a democracy, but this may be viewed as a "new" form of government (thus emphasizing the fact that democracy has never really existed) not observed in the "common experience/knowledge" of the people; so I do not mention it at this time. In reality, it's not really a new idea, just a type of government which has been tried in numerously interesting varieties which typically fail with their departure from the concept of democracy, the rule of the people.

Now many people would complain that a real democracy is impossible in practice, or that there exist problems in various areas of implementation, namely that it is difficult to get a real majority to want to support or reject any particular agenda, but that was the primary concern people had with the American form of government with her numerous and substantial system of checks and balances. Anyhow, people can dismiss my solution, but they can't dismiss my facts regarding the nature of modern democracy. While I frankly see no problems with real democracy, that issue is probably beyond the scope of Wikipedia at this time, being untested and unknown to the human experience (but in concept, not new at all to the body of human knowledge). Perhaps after governments reform to real democracy, then the practical details of such governments may be included here. --Landen99 20:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Your own opinions regarding the ideal democracy are of course original research unless published in a reliable source. Wikpedia is not the place for publishing them. Please place your criticisms [2] in the appropriate sections in the article and where there are also counter-arguments. In other words, follow NPOV. Also, your views are already covered in the article in other sections like "Plutocracy", no need to duplicate them. Finally, please do no state opinions as they were undisputed facts.Ultramarine 20:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have also reverted Landen's additions. I don't feel any of the text would attain consensus; without taking sides in what appears to be the continuing "Ultramarine et. al" debates, it does indeed read as some combination of opinion essay and other problematic constructions. - David Oberst 21:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If you dispute any facts, perhaps you could name them specifically, but as of this moment I have seen nothing but an active attempt by both of you to stop anyone else from making any changes to this great (but improvable) Democracy article. As for facts, I will establish six of them right here:

Fact 1: Democracy is based on the Latin parts: demo meaning people and cracy meaning rule, and therefore literally means rule of the people

Fact 2: Every type of democracy is an attempt to achieve the "ideal" of the rule of the people in various environments via various safeguards and contradictions (thus undermining the power of the people to rule in equality). But while these complications may distract from the inherent meaning of the word democracy with a great many complications, nothing undermines the truth of the matter that the people must rule in a democracy, if it is to have any kind of legitimacy as such.

The first fact is pure definition and the second fact is pure observation in light of this first fact put into practice in reality.

Fact 3: The majority is always determined by greater than 50 percent of the VOTES CAST.

Fact 4: Most democracies employ representatives who only turn to the interests of the people during elections, and most times simply advance their own agendas regardless of the views of their constituents on the matter.

The third fact is indisputable in every significant government/nation which allows the people to vote, including the USA and Iraq (now). The fourth fact is evident because representatives never seek and are never required to seek the majority support on any issue (except for ammending the constitution), except their initial election to office. Show me just one single case in any significant government where the representative is bound to the will of the people, or accept that this fact is NOT IN DISPUTE by anyone, anywhere, in any case whatsoever.

To this point, there is NO new information AT ALL, NO OPINION, NO NEW research .. ONLY FACTS, which don't happen to sit well with the two Democracy censors who have been working against them by actively policing this article against any deviations from their own perspectives. BTW, plutocracy (the place where you are trying to direct my work) is "form of government where the state's power is centralized in an affluent social class" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy), which is totally irrelevant to my work and absolutely not the correct forum for the BASIS of DEMOCRACY, upon which I have been focusing. Technically speaking, Plutocracy should by the rule of Pluto, but whatever, that distraction and all resistance to these four truths underlines to greatest exposition concerning the human condition and the fight human rights, the greatest truth of this millenium:

Fact 5: It is also a fact that any power which acts outside of or against the will of the people cannot legitimately claim to be an agent of the people. Therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE for the people TO RULE without all POWER being vested in the hands of their AGENTS.

Fact 6: Democracy is the rule of the people, thus far cleverly exploited throughout all ages by various tricks and mirages to the advantage of the various ruling factions in all SIGNIFICANT governments. This fact is also virtually undisputed, because of the widespread acknowledgement of the tremendous power of special interest groups, lobbyists (big oil, big business, etc.), and other corruptions in all democracies (and other types, also). Every significant population governed by a democracy will attest that their representatives act without the requirement to seek and advance their interests on each and every matter, and this is a fact.

If any person wish to dispute any fact, their only chance for success would lie in Fact 6, Facts 1-5 being untouchable in their purity, simplicity, and truth. The sixth fact is a little more complicated because it employs a little bit of logic, but fortunately anyone who opposes the War in Iraq (which would be most of the world, no?) accepts this fact completely, because they clearly see the USA acting militarily regardless of the support of her own people. The proof of Fact 6 simply relies on the fact that EVERY significant government has ALWAYS acted to the advantage of some groups at the expense of other groups. When the community is ready to consider Fact 6, I'll publish it with references, but thus far two vigilantes have been fighting the undisputable facts 1-5 without citing specific issues. The general arguments of lack of references or personal opinion/original research don't fly without specifics. I could say the sun rises in the east, and who would ask for references to that fact? Only those who prefer that truth to remain unacknowledged, unconsidered. --Landen99 14:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Many people do not share your personal opinions. They do not necessarily think that democracy involve elections and representatives, see sortition, deliberative democracy, or classical direct democracy. Your own opinions regarding the ideal democracy are of course original research unless published in a reliable source. Wikpedia is not the place for publishing them. Please place your criticisms in the appropriate sections in the article and where there are also counter-arguments. In other words, follow NPOV. Also, your views are already covered in the article in other sections like "Direct democracy", "Limited voter turnout", and "Plutocracy". No need to duplicate them. If anything is missing there, create a new section in the "Advantages and disadvantages" part, do not state your particular views unopposed in the beginning. Finally, please do no state opinions as they were undisputed facts.Ultramarine 15:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If nothing else, you are very committed to the idea that you are right, even facing the undisputable facts presented above. Turn to any dictionary (or Latin class) as your sources for Facts 1 and 2. I doubt anyone would dispute the dictionary or call it MY personal essay, unless they had a problem with the idea that the true meaning of democracy hardly evidences itself in the governments which identify with it, but that would be YOUR PERSONAL PROBLEM and YOUR PERSONAL ESSAY, not mine. The dictionary is NOT original research and its definitions deserve a place in the introductions to the concepts and not as any kind of criticism .. UNLESS YOU DON'T LIKE DEFINITIONS!

Fact 3 is a definition, immune from your personal essay/opinion accusation; write a letter to the editor of every respected english dictionary, if you have a problem with that. Fact 4 is hardly contestable, and practically a definition of the electoral system. Fact 5 is a definition of agents. Thus far (5 of 6) you are challenging the dictionaries as personal essays and criticisms against democracy; not a very sane course of action. Facts 3-5 apply to all Representative Democracies, which constitute the majority of the democracies on this earth. Consideration of sortition, and other non-electoral types representatives a VERY small and insignificant place in the HUMAN EXPERIENCE of the Wikiprojects. Face it, all modern 1st world democracies are based on elections, and definitely NOT sortition.

Finally, Fact 6 was a pillar of the discussion of the FOUNDING FATHERS of the USA constitution, and a great many other notable people of the time such as Voltaire, etc, all of whom clearly saw the troubles, instabilities, and vices of democracy. Believe it or not, before the USA, DEMOCRACY was seen as THE WORST form of government, and I'll cite that if you are unfamiliar with 17th and 18th century western history. You see, before America became great, democracy was actually seen as barbaric and base, being prone to the ever feared mob rule (see the infamous French Revolutions, 19th century history). So for my part, I'll cite most of modern history for the sixth point, hardly a personal essay or opinion, more like a western civilization autobiography than anything else.

BWT, enough with Plutocracy, rule of the elites, because it really has no bearing on my discussion. Any inferences you make from the definitions and history which I have cited above belong solely to your mind and are solely your property, not my opinions. Now, enough with the Wiki-vandalism under the guise of Wiki-policy for justification of your bias against definitions and history. --Landen99 20:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You have answered none of my objections above.Ultramarine 01:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You have offered no legitimate, specific objections. I have answered you vague critics with very concrete and irrefutable answers. You have not addressed (or even read?) any of them (my answers). Let's have some rational thought here from the Wiki-Democracy article trolls .. try again. --Landen99 21:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Given the nature of the difficulties characteristic of this democracy article over the last few months to years, and especially regarding the current issue regarding editing abuses, I recommend reading the following articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoiding_common_mistakes especially the section on deleting, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette especially the 5th bullet (agreement), the 7th bullet (ignoring questions), and the 20th bullet (avoiding reversions), and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not especially noting the section, "Wikipedia is not censored." --Landen99 21:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

In a representative democracy context, does everyone agree with the first five facts (1-5) above? Some facts are so fundamental that their truths are self-evident. Yet some here are becoming fanatical about sourcing every little thing. --Landen99 04:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly does not agree with them and are not self-evident.Ultramarine 12:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Which ones? All of them? Even #1 concerning the Latin origins of the word? Which ones don't you agree with? If there is one thing that I could wish for in practically every feedback here, it is that you would speak about specific issues and specific reasons, instead of all this vague talk and hiding behind Wiki policy V, NPOV, etc. without indicating how these policies apply in your view. At least, then, we could find a consensus easier, faster, and with greater synergy. --Landen99 02:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Even regarding #1. The word does not come from Latin. Another example #3 "Most democracies employ representatives who only turn to the interests of the people during elections, and most times simply advance their own agendas regardless of the views of their constituents on the matter." This is your own POV, my POV is that they take considerable care to public opinion in order to get elected again and in order to not damage their party.Ultramarine 10:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Take the article's very first line: "Democracy (literally "rule by the people", from the Greek demos, "people," and kratos, "rule"[1])" and "from Late Latin democratia" [3], so you stand corrected on #1. Coming from Latin doesn't mean originating in Latin; really, who knows the very first origins of the English language anyway? (that question is not meant to be answered) On #3, representatives only care about the elections, because that is the only time that people have any power over them (besides perhaps impeachment in very extreme cases), so you stand corrected here too because "during elections" can be interpreted as any time that a representative is campaigning for an election. But I admit that I like the revision "only turn to the public perception of them for their election campaign" better. I've seen this idea in numerous respected sources, and the direct democracy article echoes it, though it is an issue of any representative democracy also. If my response well resolves your issues with #1 and #3, then do you take issue with any of the other issues? BTW, I might add that I see no difference with out POVs, except perhaps how much influence public opinion has on their votes. Additionally, there is a big difference between public opinion and public interests. --Landen99 16:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is no "from Late Latin democratia" in the text. Regarding #3, that is your pov, my is different.Ultramarine 17:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, you are splitting hairs here. The general idea was perfectly in order. Regarding our #3 POV's, they both recognize the general idea, again, that the actions of representatives are tied to elections and their public image regarding them. The only voter effect (besides impeachment) on the representative is a yea or nay at the ballot box, and that idea is perfectly in order. How that affects representatives is a very separate issue, but they certainly do NOT require the majority endorsement for casting their every vote. Good, bad, or indifferent, it is a fact which is perfectly in order. You might think that I am trying to say that they should have support of the people (my POV), but I'm not, for that is an opinion which would require a respected source to be cited; I'm just commenting in my "sports box" about the fact that they do not have to have the support of the people to rule/legislate. --Landen99 21:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The opinion described in #4 (previously #3), "most times simply advance their own agendas regardless of the views of their constituents on the matter", is your own. My is very different as noted above.Ultramarine 19:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you just say that your POV is that representatives advance the views of their constituents and not their own agendas? That certainly defies human nature, and there is certainly no constitutional mandate for them to do so. Such a thing would only occur with honest politicians, but back to reality, politicians are well-known for their dishonesty and corruption. The only POV that I noted above, was a reference to politicians taking great care concerning public opinion/image, but I don't see how that relates to advancing the views of their constituents. Making yourself look good to a group, is entirely different from actually representing that group. --Landen99 16:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You have presented your own unsourced pov, my is different as noted above. Read it again, you did not represent it correctly.Ultramarine 17:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You stated, "my POV is that they take considerable care to public opinion in order to get elected again and in order to not damage their party." I re-iterate that public opinion of the image of their Reps is different from the public will, except perhaps by constructing the image that they are proponents of it. Image and action are as different as war movies and battlefields. --Landen99 15:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to disambiguate Democracy

It appears that there really are three types of distinct ideas from democracy: The modern democracies (significant current examples and the methods, policies, and role in the modern world and contemporary thought about them), the past democracies (history of), and the theories and philosophies of democracy. Anyone seeking to learn more about modern democracy would certainly have little interest in sortition or plutocracy, to name a few. Those interested in the concept of democracy in a more academic or idealistic sense would not likely be interested in the applications present or past. Frankly, all variations of democracy should be linked to the respective section of democracy by category, in order to remove the clutter and prevent information overload. This would also allow the various trolls to protect the aspect of democracy which they prefer without harming the other aspects or damning the invaluable contributions of the Wikicommunity. It would also make it easier for authors to identify the appropriate place for their contributions and to enhance organization of this very cluttered article. --Landen99 21:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There are numerous types of democracy, as shown in the article with sources.Ultramarine 02:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

..And its organization sucks! Tell me something I didn't know. How many people (including yourself) have noted the problem of having too much material in the article and the need to be "judicious" about what is included in the main article? What are your (plural) thoughts about the idea of dividing the massive, and important topic of democracy following the Wiki-principle of disambiguation? e.g. Democracy: past, present, theory. --Landen99 21:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Do we all agree that this article needs a major re-organization? What is the Wiki-mark-up language for that? Landen99 05:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree. If there is too much material in a section, it can be moved to a subarticle. Disambiguation is for clearly separate topics that happen to share a similar name.Ultramarine 12:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I see clear separations, perhaps due to the incredible diversity of the subject. Perhaps disambiguation may not be required, but I definitely think that Liberal Democracy and Representative Democracy should both be moved entirely (including all discussions regarding them throughout the article) to separate subarticles, just as Direct Democracy has been moved. I also think that the varieties section should be structured. --Landen99 17:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The section regarding advantages and disadvantages of liberal democracy could certainly be moved to the liberal democracy article. For anything else, please be more specific.Ultramarine 10:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Be specific, eh? Move to sub-article. Direct Democracy isn't on the main democracy page. It has its own page within the democracy organizational structure; a sub-article, no?. Copy that idea with the liberal and representative types; make them separate pages. --Landen99 21:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

There are already separate pages for these subjects.Ultramarine 19:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that with Representative democracy, but why is there so much material on liberal democracy in the main Democracy article? Why are non-representative types (like sortition) covered so much here instead of put on their own page? --Landen99 22:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have already stated that the "advantages and disadvantages of liberal democracy" could be moved to the liberal democracy article. Is there something else? Regarding "non-representative types", they are also forms of democracy, according to their supporters, and should therefore also be presented.Ultramarine 22:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I would suggest organizing the types by categorizing them in representative and non-representative. --Landen99 16:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Not easily done, for example Socialist democracy can be both.Ultramarine 18:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Quick, preliminary consideration reveals that many other forms can also be both, yet the inability to distinguish between the various forms in some impartial manner leaves the article with little organization. Every experiment in democracy has been a hybrid of all of the basic elements/building blocks. We can at least distinguish them based on practice: modern (currently practiced), "extinct" (not now, but formerly practiced), and theory (never practiced, but academic/published only). --Landen99 15:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Also this will be controversial, with for example anti-Communists arguing that the Communist states had socialist democracy, which obviously many socialists disagree.Ultramarine 23:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The controversy of the type of democracy or government should NOT affect its status in the categories of: practiced, practicing, and academic (theory). --Landen99 13:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately they do, as in my example.Ultramarine 17:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

How? Whatever form communism took, the fact that their form and socialist democracy are both practicing is not disputable. Is communism practicing? Of course. See Cuba and China. Is social democracy practicing? Of course. See Europe. What happens to this subject beyond the classification of "practicing" is beyond this discussion, and also no stranger to the current method of organization. This proposal for a new organization seems to have no bearing on the dispute. But I really do think that focusing on the elements of democracy is better than focusing on all the hybrid forms constructed from those elements, as it would seem to simplify the organization and consideration of the subject and quickly resolve the issue which you presented. --Landen99 17:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Repeated reversions

I have reverted these once again (diff). Obvious problems include

• the implication that representative democracy is fairly characterized as "the lesser of two evils"
• scare quotes around "free and fair elections"
• the use of Cuba and Saddam's Iraq as the only exemplars in what appears to be a slanted discussion of compulsory voting laws
• various other baffling bits apparently driven by your idiosyncratic ideas of demos/voter identity, or whatever

Frankly, my eyes glaze at multi-paragraph screeds with phrases such as "irrefutable facts", "universal truths" and the like. If you really think your edits are an improvement heartlessly being suppressed, feel free to invite a cross-section of the Wikipedia community to visit the article. You might want to place a (neutral) notice on the WP:RFC/POLITICS page or other suitable venue, for instance. In the vanishingly small likelihood that they gain a consensus I'll be happy to let them stay. - David Oberst 04:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, these reversions do appear to strongly correlate with the general eyes glazing which you have accurately noted about your own deletions and also your friend's deletions of my material. Try not to glaze this single paragraph reply to your interesting, even bewildering (but nevertheless specific) feedback on my contributions. Frankly, though, I would strongly recommend that [your] edits be reserved for after the glaze disappears and full, rational consideration is made.

• See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_of_two_evils_principle for your first point. Yes, it is already Wikified, and accepted.
• On the scare point, please be specific about what is scary and where there exists any problem in your mind.
• On the third point, the word "only" was never used, but while I felt these examples were commonly accepted, it wouldn't be a problem to source them, if needed. I have numerous sources which attest to the compulsory "demonstrations of democracy" in both regimes (and many more), but it is a lot more difficult to source them when they are immediately deleted. Better to introduce a "source need" tag, and make an IDEAS CENTERED, NEUTRAL note on the talk page. Nevertheless, please be specific about the "slant" of the discussion. The only slant I saw was the introduction of the compulsory voting policy by your friend as the only method for resolving the "Limited voting" issue and then simultaneously introducing a strong bias against compulsion. My "slant," if you can call it that was that there also exists non-compulsion resolutions to the issue. Nevertheless it is a valid, and significant issue in Democracy.
• In conclusion of my rebuttal, Oberst, you'll need to be specific about the "baffling bits" and "idiosyncratic ideas" and "whatever" with a STRONG effort to avoid ATTACKING INDIVIDUALS in favor of RATIONAL CONSIDERATION OF IDEAS, according to Wiki policy cited above (in the previous section). You see, the words just quoted are actually rather personal and negative, and really don't seem to be idea focused. In return, I will attempt to strengthen my focus on ideas, also .. I just need specific, idea-centered concerns to address, that's all.

[edited by myself, landen99] I don't think that your criticisms are as strong as you think they are. I will consider your recommendation to appeal to the Wiki community, as necessary. --Landen99 16:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Material removed without just consideration or discussion

Material deleted from the Representatives section:

Modern representatives are free to advance their own changing agendas without requiring approval from their constituents, being restrained only by periodic re-election, and impeachment (citing Representative democracy article). Hence the saying that elections are simply "voting for the lesser of two evils" [[4]] because no candidate is bound to the will of the people. It should be noted that "free and fair elections" typically take the will of the majority of the voters, and hold them as the will of the majority of the demos or representatives, respectively, thus giving credence to the saying that "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority .." (Samuel Adams) to energize a majority of the votes in such common programs as Get out the vote, where a faction seeks political domination by the relative majority of the votes.

Revisions refused from the Limited Voting section:

Some see a problem with the limited voter turnout typical of modern democracies since not all eligible voters participate in the political process. Get out the vote campaigns tend to increase voter turnout by political activism of special interest groups. Some people argue for compulsory voting and several nations, e.g., Australia, have this system, but others argue for non-compulsory voting based on the will of the majority of all eligible voters. Proponents argue that this increases the legitimacy of the elections and empowers political participation by all those affected by the political process. In a compulsory voting system, such as in Cuba or in Sadam Hussein's Iraq (before the American liberation of Iraq), political parites do not have to spend time and energy convincing voters that they should vote at all, but instead may divert their attentions to simply advancing their political agendas. Arguments against compulsory voting include restriction of freedom, economic costs of enforcing this, increased number of invalid and blank votes, and random voting.[5] Arguments for free voting and full majority rule include legitimacy, while opponents cite the difficulty of uniting the people on any given issue enough to motivate them to vote on it; despite the fact that the people may have no interest in considering many of the issues put on the ballot.

--Landen99 16:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Just as a note to anyone, I wound up with a bunch of Democracy related articles on my list last year mainly by happenstance, rather than any great urge to opine on any particular political enthusiasm. I haven't been closely `following what appears to be a laundry-list addition of sections in the last few months, but setting aside any structural problems, if there are sections that need improvement, the answer is not to tack on "some say, others say" dialogues, or have the text conduct an internal debate, but to write a single section which appropriately summarizes that area. The article could probably best benefit from the attention of a couple disengaged poli-sci grad students with free time, but I don't know where to find such a commodity.

I have no intention of micro-debating the additions in question at length - as a general reader of the article they set of my "advocacy alert" alarms, and as an editor I can't discern (and/or believe) the intent sufficiently to try and revise them piecemeal. I guess I'll live with the risk of being regarded as obstructionist, although I'd be happy to contribute further if and when they are taken up by something larger than their current universe of one. See my suggestions above on attracting more editors to this article. - David Oberst 17:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Happenstance doesn't give you articles, and rational thought (opining as you call it) is the only reasonable way to contribute to Wikipedia. Your "advocacy alarm" is more just a "personal [opinion] alarm" on aspects of democracy which you have NOT considered before, and therefore don't wish to consider because it makes you feel a little uncomfortable. If you aren't interested in making meaningful contributions, then "get out of the kitchen" because no contribution is going to ever be perfect and we are all supposed to be working here as a team improving every detail in a "piecemeal" fashion as you put it. When you target individuals, then you target "universes of one," but when you target ideas, suddenly the universe opens up to include the entire human family. Now either get back on board the Wiki train (Oberst and Ultramarine) and carefully consider what I have already said before (because I'm not repeating any of it here), or step back and let the community work the way it is supposed to, reverting only the obvious vandalisms (profanity, etc.), by either simply discussing the rest on the talk page in a rational way or doing nothing at all.

It should be noted to all that Ultramarine introduced the "some say" section in the recognition of the need for attention to the majority vote/limited voter issue, and I added the "others say" part, which Oberst has been selectively discarding. I tried at first to change it from "some say" to facts, but Ultramarine reverted it, and so I switched tactics by adding the other's say for a more balanced, rational, and neutral feel. I recognize that this format is not the best, but the material can easily be improved without regressing to deleting relevant and important material or entire sections. I also have been skeptical of the "laundry list" of sections added, but I find interesting that Oberst/Marine do not target them (though not necessarily bad) while they have been target meaningful contributions without rational consideration or discussion (definitely bad). Editing is all about details, thought, improvement, and organization; anything else is thought police. Wiki was never intended to be a work of academia, or said in another way, of grad students (BTW, I studied poli-sci in college), but instead to be the work of the common people in authoring the body of common human knowledge, history, and experiences. To that end, the common person can easily learn about almost anything here because it is written in a common language by the common people. .. that is, until people start declaring certain knowledge taboo, such as has been found here in the Democracy article.

Really, there are only two questions at the moment which I don't understand about you two. What do you have against recognizing the modern representation policy, in the Democracy article Representation header, of:

• Allowing representatives the power to act without regard for the will of the people whom they are supposed to be representing, except during elections?
• Granting the majority of the voters (in reality the most active minority) the authority of the majority of the people? --Landen99 19:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You personally see this a a great problem. I see many advantages. But there is a section with criticisms and advantages for where these things are discussed.Ultramarine 07:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

.. and this is where you two err. I see it, not so much as a problem or criticism (though it does get you thinking about those kinds of things), as much as an important aspect of representative/electoral democracy. Now I do understand why the Founding Fathers of the US constitution saw advantages in some of those facts, but at this point, advantage and problem are both irrelevant. We must recognize the truth first, then criticize it later (with sources/citations). No problem can be understood until the relevant facts which surround it are acknowledged FULLY and in a NEUTRAL manner. I'm not neutral, which is why the fact that anyone can edit this Wiki article allows for the revision (not deletion) of material which may sound partial at first.

The facts themselves may seem to reveal criticism, or to be critical, but they are just knowledge. Only interpretation brings criticism, and some knowledge lends itself to easier interpretation than others. For example, the fact that a car is traveling "x" miles per hour over the speed limit is not a criticism, but many people instantly infer that speeding is bad and therefore see that fact as a criticism.

Whether a fact reveals a problem or an advantage is irrelevant, it must not be suppressed. If anything, it must be made to read neutrally without losing any of the important information. --Landen99 15:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Some rewriting

I made a few changes to the article. I was a little puzzled by the "Aristotle" section, since it didn't seem to describe a "variety" of democracy. I assume the intent would be to somehow refer to the Athenian experience, and included an appropriate placeholder section. Since the primary example of sortition seems to be in Athens, perhaps it could be incorporated in here instead of a separate section, or mention moved to a section dealing with selection mechanisms.

I also tried to rewrite the "representative" section, to summarize the [representative democracy] article it refers to. Similarly, "Limited Voter Turnout" from the voter turnout and related articles. I realize this latter change especially will make certain parties unhappy, but I was unable to determine, for instance, what a phrase such as "waiting for the full majority of all the eligible voters" might mean, without any context or referencing. - David Oberst 06:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you totally blew a few sections "out of the water." Massive sections completely deleted and re-written with little remains from any of the authors. As a general rule, nothing should be deleted in ignorance. If you can't determine what something means, please utilize the talk page to that end and perhaps do a little more research.

It means an election without a predetermined closing date. This is not a new concept. The most notable case occurs with the ammendment prossess of the US constitution. The condition for closing each issue resting on greater than 50% of the eligible voters (full majority) siding either for or against them; among a few other similar conditions. The US congress has similar mechanisms when insufficient numbers of congressmen cast their vote at critical times. I hope that context and those references are sufficient to convince you to restore the material in the limited voter section.--Landen99 15:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I would note that a certain responsibility rests with each editor to ensure the clarity of their additions, and I'll stand behind my original evaluation of the "waiting for the full majority..." phrase. If mechanisms such as the Amendment process (or anything else) are intended, and are indeed notable in the context of voter turnout, then report on this, giving some reference to whatever movement, school of thought, proposal etc., is being described. - David Oberst 02:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

uh, right, well then the school of thought would be the Founders of the US constitution and the movement would be every amendment ever made to the US constitution. The voters in this case would be the states (repesenting their constituents), and the turnout would be 3/4 of all "voters" (see Article 5, US constitution) and not just of the "voters" (states) which decided to vote by some arbitrary deadline; as is typical in most representative democracy elections. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Article_Five:_Process_of_Amendments So the amendment process "waits" for a supermajority (2/3) of all the voters (state) which is even bigger and "better" than your issue with "waiting" for a regular majority of over 1/2 (50%). Did I address your question fully? Do you now understand the phrase in question and its basis on that topic?

BTW, this seems to me to go without saying that some editors aren't very good at reading the minds of other editors in anticipation of what might not be clear to them. We try to be clear, but sometimes in life people just don't understand. That's why those editors with questions are highly encouraged by official Wiki-policy (cited several sections above) to engage in discussion BEFORE deleting the deliberative work of other authors (and thus angering and disenfranchising them) simply because one editor doesn't understand.

Back on the request for references issue: Most other references appear trivial and unnecessary in comparison, but if you need more references, then it would really help me to know how you feel about the contribution of Article 5 to the discussion. --Landen99 04:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I seem to vaguely recall hearing something about that constitution thingy, but I'll take your word that it exists. However, that isn't the point. Please see WP:NOR - specifically "introduces an analysis or synthesis of published facts, opinions, or arguments...without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article". In the case in question, the topic of "voter turnout", there may very well be something to be included about various types of votes, ratifications or whatever, but so far you are just giving us your own "analysis or synthesis", which is original research. Wikipedia editors don't get play in the game, or even referee, they are just the reporters in the sports box. David Oberst 09:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Before deleting something about the US constitution, a major case for democracy, I suggest you read it first, especially the 5th Article in this case. As for synthesis or analysis, the mere inclusion of facts together is a synthesis and any connecting of those facts for smooth, coherent reading is analysis and rational thought. If you see any excess, please be specific so that good material can be retained without ANY partiality (including the bias of removing it from the article). Landen99 15:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I take it that the NOR issue is dropped then, no? (If not, be specific) --Landen99 16:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

World on Fire/Amy Chua

The "[illiberal]" qualifier in the "Chua" section, which I have removed again (diff) is a similar case. A sentence that begins "X claims that..." should accurately reflect what X has indeed claimed. I can see nothing in the World on Fire article or the linked references that would indicate Professor Chua restricts her usage of "democratization" to some subset she would characterize as "illiberal", and whatever an individual editor feels about her position doesn't provide justification for misleading qualifiers in setting it out. - David Oberst 09:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

As for Chua, is this professor even known or respected anywhere? No offense to Chua, but a PhD, even at Yale, only goes so far in the credibility department when you start talking communism (wealth redistribution) in a free market context. More importantly, do you think that she meant to include (original intent) a liberal democracy with full protections on individual liberties and wealth? That would make no logical sense, though it does follow her illogical support of wealth "redistribution" (legal theft) for the reconciliation of ethnic tensions and envy. Anyhow, without that qualifier she is basically saying that in a government where individual wealth is protected, it is very vulnerable to the majority, and therefore really isn't protected .. which is an inherent contradiction. Support of legal theft as a resolution for the minority (even ethnic) fear of "legal" theft by the majority is also a paradox and a contradiction in reason.

..and don't think that sports box reporters don't put their own spin, context, perspective, and knowledge on their commentary, because they do it with almost every sentence. --Landen99 15:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I have also removed your recent unsourced "resolution" sentence (diff). I think you are missing the point of WP:OR - personal opinions about whether her arguments are "inherently contradictory", lack "credibility" or don't meet one's own definition of some particular term, or musings about "what she meant", are beside the point. Presumably there are notable responses to Professor Chua's thesis (although the World on Fire article seems deficient in this respect) - these would be useful to discover and report on. David Oberst 17:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

When forceful wealth redistribution (Chua's stated bias) seizes the property of a rich minority, this inherently forces the very [ethnic] conflict of which Chua was speaking. Ask any wealthy Cuban in America about their feelings on Castro's nationalization of their property. Most Cubans in America have very strong feelings toward the pathetic dictator, Mr. Castro. You want more sources, turn to American Jews, or any other wealthy ethnicity for their views on the matter of socialism. The wealthy minority disagree with Chua, and their voices ought not to be silenced, lest in time they silence people like Chua in the very conflicts of which she spoke.

BTW, what if I said that Chua's work is original research, or personal opinion? Does publication anywhere outside of Wikipedia remove ideas from the harsh, silencing criticism of original research or personal opinion? --Landen99 21:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, see WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc., especially this Smith/Jones example, or "Material counts as original research if it...introduces an argument without citing a reliable source who has made that argument in relation to the topic of the article". If you wish to make primary arguments against Chua's (or anyone else's) work, this is not the right place - try a blog, a scholarly article, or a letter to the New York Times. As the most recent example, I hardly think I'm the only editor who would see obvious NPOV problems with a phrase such as "In an effort to appease the wealth envy of poor majorities..." (now removed). - David Oberst 01:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that Chua made her motivations for wealth redistribution (in reality, legal theft targeting "market-driving" minorities) clear enough to support such an introduction to the same. Amy said that: "democracy leads to the emergence of manipulative politicians and demagogues who find that the best way to get votes is by scapegoating the minorities" which essentially translates to saying, "that the popular course of action is for the majority to target minorities." So if the majority targets rich minorities with extra zeal (I called it wealth envy), then she says redistribute the wealth. She wants to target rich minorities for the benefit of the majority, the very same agenda which she admits makes democracy (in its current practice) problematic (see the blacklash section at the beginning of that section [6]). No NPOV problem here. Everything is completely in order. So where is the obvious problem again? --Landen99 04:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Oberst. Violates various policies such as V and NOR. Futhermore, progressive taxation is a policy in most democracies and does not contradict democracy.Ultramarine 12:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the policy violations at all. Do you have any specific response to my reply?

If progressive taxation is democratic, then how does a divided people (into wealth classes) rule when they are forced to fight against each other? Division gives way to political manipulations by elite leaders and internal conflict of interest among the people. Seriously, how is oppression of the wealthy minority a democratic principle? The progressive tax is only a modern source of conflict in democracies today; conflict because the two principles cannot coexist peacefully/naturally. --Landen99 16:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

See Oberst's argument above. Most democracies have progressive taxation. Very few, or none, argue that this is against some democratic principle.Ultramarine 17:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Asking any democracy with progressive taxation to "argue that this is against some democratic principle" is like asking a politician to tell the truth; it goes against their very nature and their own survival.

BTW, I still want to know paraphrasing a source in connecting two of her ideas goes against any Wiki policy, because I don't think so. --Landen99 02:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, there is a difference between genocide and progressive taxation.Ultramarine 10:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've reduced the "Chua" paragraph. The build-up of quotation blocks is unhelpful to the reader and potentially endless, not to mention duplication of effort from the World on Fire article. It would seem that a simple "call out" summary to the World on Fire article is all that is needed. It could be a paraphrase of the thesis instead of the existing direct quote that I left, a more explicit "see World on Fire article for detailed discussion" could be added, and the summary can be probably be expanded. But the World on Fire article would seem to be the place for all the detailed examination, and will benefit from the attention. I moved the Leef reference there, and the text to the Talk page (it will need work). - David Oberst 22:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Be specific about the kind of work that you think needs to be done, because it is as neutral as it gets. Before making any changes, talk about them first and gain consensus. I propose a Wiki policy that uses of NPOV must be justified in the same breath. Until the policy change takes effect, I hope that you will or currently do see the wisdom in that, because typically people disagree about any Wiki policy issues with their contributions and just need to know why an author would make such claims. --Landen99 16:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Moving to liberal democracy

Would this be a good time to point out that the advantages and disadvantages section is duplicated here and in the liberal democracy article, and to re-open the subject of moving it to liberal democracy? If I remember correctly, Ultramarine, you moved it here some time ago in response to vandalism that has since subsided. My philosophy is that any edits made as a reaction to vandalism should be undone as soon as the vandal is gone. -- Nikodemos 10:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Anyone oppose? Ultramarine 12:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I partially agree. I think that the parts which relate directly to liberal democracy alone should be moved, and then that the entire [liberal democracy] section be moved to a subarticle. But it appears that there are many advantages and disadvantages which either relate to other forms or to democracy in general. One task to be done after moving the liberal democracy parts would be to migrate those parts relating to the other forms specifically to their sections.

Asking a government which claims democracy to admit to following an undemocratic principle is like expecting an employee to ask his boss to lower his salary and benefits or expecting a CEO to publicly admit that his human resources policies are harmful and reveal a disregard for his employees. BTW, where did the subject of genocide come from? And how does the difference between genocide and progressive taxation apply to our discussion? How does it relate to paraphrasing, and transitioning, or even context elaboration? You totally lost me with that reponse. When I mentioned survival of politicians, I was referring to political survival, if that helps any. --Landen99 14:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, all of them refer to liberal democracy - either explicitly or by talking about the historical record of 20th century democracies (which were liberal democracies). Could you be more specific about the exact sections that you want to keep in this article? -- Nikodemos 20:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, Limited voter turnout applies mostly to democracy in general. Same with Democracy and ethnic and religious conflicts. While liberal democracy could be applied to these subjects, it hasn't yet been done in those sections. Plutocracy seems to read more like Socialist perspective of Representative democracy. This section seems to better fit with Representative democracy than with Liberal democracy, except the last paragraph of that section which seems to belong in some other section of the Liberal Democracy sub-article. The second to the last paragraph about taxes seems to belong with the socialist democracy section. The rest seem fit IMHO to be moved to the Liberal Democracy subarticle as Nikodemos has suggested. --Landen99 21:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, democracy include for example sortition. "Limited voter turnout" is not applicable to this form of democracy. The criticisms regarding ethnic conflicts or plutocracy apply to existing representative democracies, not to other forms, unless you can find some examples from for example Athens. That such problems can exist in illiberal representative democracies (= de facto dictatorships) is trivial, so it is really only interesting if they apply in liberal representative democracies. Social democracy is a form of liberal democracy.Ultramarine 19:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

So, are you saying that communism (pure socialism) protects liberty as a liberal democracy? If so, where is your source? BTW, limited voter turnout could apply to sortition if only a limited number of people from the demos draw a "straw" or a "string" (a popular method of selection in sortition being the identification of the person who draws the short/long string/straw); i.e. the drawing chooses only among those who choose to be part of the sample. The principles and the effects are the same as if it were applied to either representation or suffrage in general. --Landen99 22:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Pure theoretical communism by definition does not have plutocracy so such a criticism certainly does not apply to this form of democracy. I guess you are stating that if some people do not want to serve if choosen by sortition, then the result is flawed. This is still not "limited voter turnout", there are no voters in this system. Maybe you could developed this into a general problem with all forms of democracy, that a segment of the population may refuse to use the power given to them, which then makes them powerless. Regardless, this is not "limited voter turnout" and may be solved differently in different system. For example, in sortition it may be solved, for example, by picking a similar person to one rejecting to tule, or allowing the picked person to pick another person, or compulsory ruling. Again, this section deals only with liberal democracy and not other forms.Ultramarine 23:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess we aren't talking about the purely theoretical kind of communism, are we? .. whose theory, anyway?

I sense a need for a citation/source on that one. On sortition, I was actually speaking about those who chose not to "take lots" (draw strings/straws/whatever) or register for selection (voluntarily). Refusing to be selected from a "voter" pool (i.e. selective service, which requires involuntary registration) reveals involuntary registration giving the appearance of a complete voter turnout, when in reality the resistance reveals that the turnout is really limited. Yes, limited voter turnout applies to any form of democracy with a selection process of anykind, where the selection pool does not consist of the entire (eligible) population. Now force (compulsion) is the typical resolution considered from any problem which seems difficult to resolve, but as you noted in the article recently, the lack of a vote can be considered a vote in opposition of any given proposal. I have seen this done in many prominent organizations. --Landen99 17:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

To quote from the 1977 Soviet Constitution "It is a society of true democracy" and "The foundation of the economic system of the USSR is socialist ownership of the means of production...No one has the right to use socialist property for person gain or other selfish ends."[7] So, much of the criticisms does not apply, you have to use other that do not apply to liberal democracies, like one-pary system and only-one-candidate-per-post elections.

The theory that the only democratic system is a voting system where if one does not vote, then this means a no vote, has many problems. One, this means that the true will of the majority could be ignored, if they are in fact for, but do not vote. Two, not applicable if the questions invole more than yes or no, like "which of these candidates should be head of this agency?" or "should the money be spent on health or education?" Three, if there are not liberites and civil rights, then minorities could be persecuted. Four, a no vote can be just as problematic as a yes vote, like "should we send aid to the victims of this California earthquake".Ultramarine 18:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Just as problematic is the theory that if one does not vote then one really votes in favor of the majority of those who do vote. The idea that a majority could have a will and not choose to express it is not logical or sensible. When people desire to buy things (having the means to do so) then they do it. The lack of buying at a certain store does not indicate the self-suppressed desire to buy whatever the majority of that store's patrons bought. Sometimes, the choices available to voters are all wrong. Two: The majority might not desire any of those "candidates" to "be head of this agency," i.e. none of the above. Three: The rights and liberties of minorities are far more vulnerable to infringment by the much smaller and more polarized politically-active factions than by the much more diverse full majority. Issues of voter intimidation of minorities would certainly disappear. Four: If it is not the will of the people to send aid exclusively to a certain state (a fundamental violation of equality in itself), then who is anyone to say that it is their will. If it was their will, then they would say so, and it is no one's place to put words in the mouths of the people. The people may choose wrongly from time to time, but the person who chooses to correct them for the sake of their own standards of morality places themselves as "benevolent" dictator. A people without liberty cannot rule as a democracy. For where is the sovereign power of their will without individual freedom? Obviously, freedom involves the ability to make wrong decisions. --Landen99 17:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Give no response in 9 days, I am assuming that the authors which give most consideration and discussion concerning the direction of this article are in agreement with my comments in the most recent reply (above) to the democratic theory of voting. I will check back for any responses to this post in a little while to verify that this, in fact, is the case. --Landen99 20:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No, but since you have no answered for example the points regarding Soviet democracy I assumed that the issue was settled.Ultramarine 20:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You've confused me again. Soviet democracy is not the issue here and I am not interest in talking about country specific democracies anyway. The issue here is the democratic theory of voting, so perhaps you could answer to that instead. --Landen99 14:25, 05 April 2007 (UTC)

Tag on "Direct Democracy" section

I added a tag to this section. Please see WP:AWW. Especially with the most recent addition (diff), this seems to read like a textbook case of the problems described at WP:AWW; see especially the "few simple questions" section near the beginning. This is the problem with these sorts of "criticism" or "for and against" sections - they all too often devolve into a catchall area for unsourced, vague, unfocussed, backdoor POV or otherwise troublesome text that normally wouldn't survive in a well-written Wikipedia article. Not that this is the only subhead with this problem, but it is the clearest example, and hopefully the tag will help attract some additional editors interested in improving the article. [Note that the phrase "weasel" is the existing Wikipedia term and part of the template, and should not be considered pejorative]. - David Oberst 02:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Since you care about sources so much (which is admittedly and inherently a good thing, minus the excesses which are typically "justified" by them), then perhaps you could catalyze the movement of identifying sources for the material and making the material more clear. BTW, it should be noted that the word weasel means the use of language which sounds authoritative, but really isn't; it doesn't apply to material which makes no attempt to be authoritative. "Most scientists believe" = weasel, while "one concern is" <> weasel (NOT weasel, even though it is unsourced), because it holds no authoritative language (though there may exist a substantial amount of real authority yet to be cited on the concern).--Landen99 05:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Separating criticism

Criticism shouldn't be separated from the main article body, as it goes against wikipedia policy [8]. That link to Wikipedia's Words to Avoid:Article structure shows that separating criticism harms the neutrality and quality of the article. Read it and consider re-integrating the issues in the criticism section back into the article. Same goes for the Amy Chua article, and others also. --Landen99 16:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no probhibition of a section for arguments for and against, only against "controversy". Numerous wikipedia articles have sections with criticisms. In fact, this support such a section.Ultramarine 17:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll quote it and then perhaps you will see the prohibition more clearly:

Article structure

Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact - the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate.

Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should attempt to write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other.

From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.

We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. Present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a reasonable idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such details.

See also: Wikipedia:Criticism

I would like to emphasize the following quote from that extract: ".. editors should attempt to write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other." --Landen99 21:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, there are numerous articles with "criticisms" sections, including all major articles on political systems. Your favorite quote above states that there should not be a section with only advantages or a section with only criticisms, but instead, sections should present both points of view at the same time. That is how all "criticisms" sections in different articles are (despite the name which is misleading). Especially, there is no support for that an article should start with criticisms without also mentioning advantages.Ultramarine 19:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That is a good point. I have seen material moved out of the general article into the criticisms section as if to protect the material in the general article from it. I agree with you and instead challenge the separation of counter-arguments into that section for protecting and elevating material in the main body. --Landen99 22:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean? Are you arguing that the whole "advantages and disadvantages of liberal democracy" should be at the top of the article?Ultramarine 23:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I was actually talking about the critisms section, but perhaps you are implying the need to rename that section? Anyhow, I think it should be renamed to "Criticisms," based on the current trend here, but I don't think that we should move it. I think we should stop trying to see problems or criticisms in facts about democracy, and just let them be in the main article. Any sources which have problems with those facts should be referenced in the criticism section. That's all I am saying.

Many people considered the fact that "the world is round" as a criticism of the Church. The fact of itself is not a criticism, it is just an observation or hypothesis (at first). It was the fact's disagreement with Church doctrine which posed the problem and revealed room for criticism of the Church's claim to truth. But many people in that era couldn't distinguish between facts and natural implications of facts, so a lot of people were burned, punished, and silenced for simply revealing truth (during the time period when the earth was thought to be flat and at the center of the solar system). This inability to distinguish fact and criticism continues to fuel fires of book burning and censorship to this day. Sometimes, editors prefer to silence referenced facts in Wikipedia by "distilling them out into separate sections that ignore each other." "It also creates a hierarchy of fact - the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate." Banishing less preferred views to later sections in the article.. --Landen99 17:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If I understand this correctly, you want to present criticisms at the beginning of the article, but the counter-criticisms at the end. Not acceptable.Ultramarine 17:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I want counter-points to follow inline with points. Criticisms based on those counterpoints may be segregated into the criticism section. --Landen99 15:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly sure what you mean. It seems fair and NPOV to present criticisms and arguments for in one section.Ultramarine 23:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with that so long is it allows the facts to remain with and connected to appropriate sections. For instance, when the topic of representation is introduced in the democracy article (not just as a type of democracy, but as an element of it), criticisms of it should be within that section. --Landen99 13:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

So again, you want to have your own criticisms at the beginning of the article, in the description of different forms of democracy, but counter-arguments and arguments for in another section. Not acceptable.Ultramarine 17:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I get the strong impression that you didn't understand me. I'm certainly not understanding you .. or if I am, it isn't making much sense at all. Perhaps it would be better to talk about specifics. --Landen99 17:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Varieties section ordered for bias

I challenge the order of the types/varieties of Democracy. Sortition is not the first idea to come to mind on the subject for anyone. Alphabetical order is more impartial, but prominence in practice order is probably much more useful and neutral. That would put liberal democracy and representative democracy at the top, not sortition and tribal democracy (possibly the two rarest forms of democracy seen on this planet). Additionally, the title of this section, Varieties of Democracy, would read better as Types of Democracy. --Landen99 21:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. The subarticle is named "Varieties" and the difference to to "Types" does not seem very significant.Ultramarine 19:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The word "Types" is more commonly used in cases like these. Readers will find a more uniform and familiar feel to the organization with my suggested title. --Landen99 22:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

How about "Forms of democracy"? Gets 5 times more Google hits than "Types of democracy"Ultramarine 21:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --Landen99 15:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for improving the organization

I would like to suggest that:

• The Democracy article be organized by its principle elements of democracies forming the sections, such as: representation, suffrage, constitution, division of powers, liberalism, socialism, sortition, and famous quotes.
• The types of democracy be organized into past, present, and future, and classified by the principle elements from which each is constructed. All other details being reserved for the linked page dedicated to each type. The order of elements within each section should probably follow either the degree to which each has been popular or the timeline of their introduction to the world knowledge. --Landen99 14:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Many forms of democracy do not have suffrage, constitution, division of powers, and socialism, so not possible. Quotes should be in Wikiquote. Regarding organizing types, your division again will cause difficulty, for example socialists and their critics will dispute where to place socialist democracy.Ultramarine 17:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment on quotes, but on the others, it is possible. Who says that every form of democracy must contain every element of democracy when each is classified by those elements? The idea would be that each form of democracy would be introduced by the elements which classify it. For instance, this form contains the following elements of democracy: yada yada yada. In these cases, it also contains this element. etc. --Landen99 17:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

One editor insists that his prefered view is the only true definition of democracy and ignores the many other sourced views regarding what democracy is. He also misrepresentes the view of one source, Dahl, seee the Polyarchy article for a correct view.Ultramarine 17:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I have trouble believing that "often" is an accurate or useful description of the frequency of people using "democracy" when they really mean polyarchy. - David Oberst 17:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

One editor (and an apparent sock puppet) insists on inserting completely false statements into the preamble of the entry. Somehow, a reference to an article by a two-bit political hack carries more weight the consesnsus opinion as described by the pre-eminent scholar of democracy in the US. --Drono 20:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I favor the Drono version in the recent edit war. I wish this article was not such a attractant for wars over ideology, involving ownership of the definition of the word 'democracy'. BruceHallman 21:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It is Drono that claims ownership, insisting that Democracy only means his prefered version and nothing else. A definition which is also not the definition used by Dahl, see the Polyarchy article. I want a neutral intro not claiming that democracy means only one thing. There are numerous wildly different definitions of "democracy" as noted in the article.Ultramarine 22:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to get rid of the "Zakaria" ref, be my guest. And perhaps the "all citizens are politically equal" is a better lead than "often refers to representative, liberal democracy" - I gave up trying to improve the writing style quite some time ago. But for the lead paragraph of a major article like "Democracy" to claim that what is "often" meant is actually a different term is quite something else, and not at all obvious to me, and unless it is supported by a consensus of other editors, I'm going to assume it is merely the (persistent) viewpoint of a single individual, one whose credibility with me is not enhanced by obviously silly allegations of sockpuppetry. - David Oberst 21:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Polyarchy seems an important concept that ultramarine raised, but is too complex to cover, so I referenced it at the bottom. Just revert it if you object, I won't object. Raggz 22:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sierra Leone

I just heard in a BBC documentary about the origins of Sierra Leone that is was the first country (anywhere, ever) that had elections in which women could participate (must have been 1792 or 1793). Of course this probably ignores similar democracies on a more tribal level, but still it might be called the first truly democratic country in a western sense. Is that right? DirkvdM 16:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not know, but try asking the people at Universal suffrage.Ultramarine 16:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

18th and 19th centuries

The author writes; 'The United States Constitution, adopted in 1788, provided for an elected government and protected civil rights and liberties. However, in the colonial period before 1776, only adult white male property owners could vote; enslaved Africans, free black people and women were not extended the franchise.'

Having pointed out that only white male property owners could vote prior to 1776, the impression is given that voting rights must have changed post 1788. In fact nothing changed. It was still only white male property owners who could vote. This would not change for a further 68 years when the right to vote was extended to all white males. Women got universal suffrage in 1920, while more than 20 million blacks were still being denied the vote until 1965. See 'Voting rights in the United States'

The article is therefore misleading and should be changed. If it is to state who could or could not vote before 1776, then it should include who could or could not vote post 1776.

Dendeb 13:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Majority Rule, Seperation of Powers

I find this to be rather misleading in saying that Democracy refers to a society with Majoritarian rule, when really all it needs is a "Plurality" as shown in most Proportional Representation democracies.

Also, most Palimentary systems of Democracy have no seperation of powers, most notably, Britain.