Talk:Democracy/Archive 8

All discussion up through December 2004 has been archived.

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

Tyranny of the majority (moving content to another article)

I'd like to propose that some of the content from "Tyranny of the majority" be moved into the majoritarianism article, especially the examples. I just feel that this section is just getting too long. IMHO, democracy should be an introduction to the concept and link to a lot of sub-articles rather than being very extensive (and long) itself. Any thoughts? --Stevietheman 03:54, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree - go for it. Although Majoritarianism doesn't currently use the term "tyranny of the majority" so some adjusting needed I guess. The same could perhaps be done for the "Elections as rituals" section and elections - or else the links between the articles strengthened.--Cjnm 11:44, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, it is important to convey negative aspects of democracy in this article, so that people can see it is just a lesser evil and not a panacea. Majoritarianism doesn't serve the purpose, because most people have never heard of it and often pluralities have the same negative characteristics.--Silverback 19:16, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Points taken. You're right that many elections are decided with pluralities. Thus, we probably need to rework this section or write new content to address this.

Also, this made me think that we might want content that addresses the other negative of what happens in a society when the majority will isn't regularly adhered to. In other words, talk about the political problems that democracy best solves.

As an aside, I don't think "most people have never heard of it" should play into our article writing decisions. There are many encyclopedic articles that wouldn't get written if this were a consideration. --Stevietheman 19:28, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that "most people have never heard of it" should not be used to block obscure or technical subjects. Although, most english speakers probably have never heard of majoritarianism, english is such in its techniques of constructing new words that most could hazard a good guess about what it means upon hearing it. On a subject such as democracy, that most people have heard of, they find this page probably not because they don't know what it is, but wonder if there are considerations or nuances to the issue they haven't considered, there should be at least a concise summary here and some thought provoking examples that will allow them to assess whether the information on a page they are being referred to will be interesting to them or not. IMO, with the examples we have have assembled, most will have been stimulated to consider minorities they might not have otherwise thought of as minorities, that while they may not be sympathic to some of them, they might realize that they themselves might be in some minority without realizing it that could be threatened in the future, and the limitations and mechanisms of democracy deserve their careful consideration.--Silverback 14:37, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Thank you for your thoughts. --Stevietheman 20:46, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Democratic decisions from pluralities

Does anyone have any ideas about how we can address the situations where democratic decisions are not always made with majorities? --Stevietheman 20:53, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Negatives from lack of democracy

It would be good to include content that addresses the negative of what happens in a society when the majority will isn't regularly adhered to. In other words, talk about the political problems that democracy best solves. I think this would be a good balance to the "Tyranny of the majority" content. Any ideas? --Stevietheman 20:53, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be superfluous: the criticisms of other political theories would already state the negatives from lack of democracy. There is no sense in repeating yourself.

And thanks for teaching me the code as to how I can 'sign' my name... --jsw663 03.47, 03 May 2005

At a minimum, "tyranny of the majority" should be balanced with something akin to the "tyranny of the minority". Since tyranny of the minority (or of the one) is far more common in history than a tyranny of the majority (if indeed that's ever really occurred), balance would make sense here. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 02:55, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Democracy doesn't end on Election Day

It would be also good to include content covering the idea that in a constitutional framework, democracy is more of an ongoing process rather than just what takes place on Election Day. Modern democracy includes the right to participate in the formulation of regulations, to petition the government for grievances, to mount campaigns to convince Congresscritters (and their equivalents everywhere) of specific positions, to take group economic actions which demonstrate the power of said group so their positions are taken seriously, etc. --Stevietheman 15:54, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Socrates blurb / Modern democracy

First of all, this article has been about "modern democracy"/"liberal democracy" for a long time. If we wish to change the article title to "Democracy (modern)", that's one approach for further clarification, but on the other hand, it's not unusual for there to be a lead article in the Wikipedia for a term that has multiple meanings. It probably is obvious that "modern democracy" is far and away the leading approach to describing the term "democracy" at this time.

That said, the Socrates blurb relates to Athenian democracy, not modern democracy, which this article is about. Beyond this, there are already a good number of "tyranny of the majority" examples so that having the Socrates blurb or any others doesn't really add any additional useful info anyway. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 18:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vote for What?

The older greek and roman (under the senate not the emperor so don't bite my head off) democracies were more in the sense of having to vote for a policy rather than a person. In modern democracies this is simply not the case. Is a democracy therefore voting for a leader, or is it "tyranny of the masses" as so eloquently put in the article?

The term Democracy is simply rule by the people, through laws or elected representatives. A Republic is a form of democracy in which leaders are elected based on the will of the people and serves as a check on the tyranny of the masses. --Mr Anthem 07:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

POV

An anon keeps inserting a large amount of poorly formed POV. Please everyone help us keep this out of the article unless and until this person goes over the material in the talk here. We can't have stuff like this sit in the article for hours before reversion. At best, this material needs a lot of discussion and cleanup before inclusion. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 00:14, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Historical development of modern democracy

Just realized the big chunk that's missing from this article. It's almost hard to believe the historical development of modern democracy hasn't been covered yet, at least, in this article or an article of its own. Anyone care to take a stab at this sometime? It might be fun.  :) — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 03:07, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cons of democracy

Actually, I was curious about one thing: besides Hitler's pre-Nazi Germany example, which other examples in history can show that democracy has failed?

It is all very well to talk about the benefits of democracy in the democracy page, but to be balanced, we need a lengthier 'cons of democracy' section, illustrated with more examples.

This is not intended to be an anti-democracy point, but rather, if an entire section can be devoted to democracy being "the loyal opposition", then the least one can expect is an opposing view to the opposition, so to speak.

PS I also note that in other political theories, there are lengthy, detailed sections on its criticisms - why can't there be an effective one for democracy as well?

-- jsw663 03.44, 03 May 2005

Agreed but with a caveat: There's still many positives about democracy that have been left out as well. We need a full exploration of both the pros and cons. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 02:46, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree, but it seems as if the cons section is seriously underdeveloped, whereas I personally, with my limited knowledge, cannot think of many more pros of democracy! -- jsw663 03.50, 03 May 2005

Democracy? What democracy? Representatives are mostly liars, traitors and criminals carefully selected by parties and Ivy League secret societies to give only a handful of choices to the people. And then, whatever the choice of the people, representatives stab everyone in the back with a vast metaphoric dagger. The primary election process for the President of the United States of America is the most complicated in the world, with complicated party and government rules at each of the local, state and federal levels, modified at each election for the victory of a particular candidate, in stark naked contrast to the simple systems used in the rest of the USA dominated world. The world's a labor aristocracy. The "independent observers" that stand for the entire world's opinion of whether any one election is "free and fair" are probably just Americans pasted onto world opinion, anyway. The constitution is whatever someone that passed the Bar, the President and Congress likes, says that it is. If it's not a direct democracy, it's just the reigning criminal organization, especially the way that states historically act. And democracy is nothing but a gigantic lie. Santa Claus is nothing more or less than the spirit of Christmas. See lie to children.

The USA isn't even a Westphailian state anyway. The state isn't organized, the state isn't a community, its politics is just an ideological cover for a battle of elites and commoners on each side trying to rob each other, there are no territorial limits to its world domination or hegemonic influence, and its sovereignty is used in a self defeating way. The War on Drugs and the semanticomoronic "Terror" are both completely self defeating: some deterrence, no reform, no escape, no alternative, no possibility of diplomacy.FET 00:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

On Power Personified.

There is a delicious portrait of the very inner workings of power:

It is of Russian President Vladimir Putin and champion Olympic Greco-Roman wrestler Alexander Karelin.

Karelin towers over Putin in a protective posture while Putin shows a hovering glee.

The "pinnicle" of society "needs" the more "base" elements for its existence.

Find it at: [1]

--Scroll1 02:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Different Shape on Every Issue?

"Another argument is that majorities and minorities actually take a markedly different shape on every issue; therefore, majorities will usually be careful to take into account the dissent of the minority, lest they ultimately become part of a minority on a future democratic decision."

Could I see a cite to some notable theorist who makes this point? Whoever it is, I'm sure he/she words it better than this. Majorities do sometimes maintain their coherence over a wide range of issues for a long time, the statement that they take a "different shape on EVERY issue" is just wrong. Indeed, the way we switch to more cautious language like "usually" after the semi-colon makes me even more suspicious than I would otherwise be of the "EVERY" before it. --Christofurio 21:04, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

I see no issue with this statement, except that the wording could be improved. It seems to be making a logical statement about what happens in democracy. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 23:07, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

There are certainly some minorities that stand out as distinctive and that remain outside the ruling coalition long enough to be persecuted. Consider the (white) farmers in Zimbabwe who were driven out of the country a couple of years ago. Consider ethnic Chinese in certain east Asian countries, or the Jews in France at the time of Dreyfus' trial. In each of these cases, the mere possibility that "they could eventually do the same to us if they become part of a ruling coalition" did little or nothing to allay persecution, because the minority was/is distinctive, was/is relatively prosperous, was/is the object of majority envy. I'm am glad that the word has just been changed a bit, but I still would like yto see a citation to some notable theorist who has actually made this point. --Christofurio 23:46, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Well, let's keep it in the article while a source is searched for. I'm very sure this is something that has been said quite often. As for your examples, that's fair... but the statement we're referring to is talking about a tendency for tolerance of the minority... it isn't an absolute. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 23:52, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

It obviously doesn't hold in every case. It it still a good point as it it applies in many cases. Many people have different views on taxes, gun rights, foreign policy, abortion, and so on. Sometimes they are in a majority, sometimes in a minority. And people may change their view. Ethnic minorities are a special case since one cannot change this and one is easily marked as belonging to this particular minority. Ultramarine 01:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

When you guys speak of minorities and majorities, do you mean ethnic/social (i.e. gypsies, homosexuals, clowns) or political (i.e. administration vs opposition)? Wouter Lievens 09:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Political, as in each individual political issue having a different majority/minority associated with it. But you do raise a significant distinction re: ethnic/social that should help us clarify the content in question, although it could also be argued that ethnic/social minorities are often not monolithic in their support of or opposition to various issues. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 16:34, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Lincoln said something very like this; I have no problem with fiddling with the quantification. Septentrionalis 23:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have another problem in this passage. "A third common argument is that, despite the risks, majority rule is preferable to other systems, and the tyranny of the majority is in any case an improvement on a tyranny of a minority. Proponents of democracy argue that empirical statistical evidence strongly shows that more democracy leads to less internal violence and democide."

Since these two sentences are in the same paragraph I gather that the second of them is supposed to illuminate or expnd on the first. But it doesn't seem to do so. The first of those sentences seems to be making a purely logical (analytical, if you will) point. The second seems to be making a different, empirical, point. --Christofurio 21:00, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Les Marshall

Could somebody please find a source/reference for the Les Marshall material? Thanks. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 18:27, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

This has bugged me, too, since most of the references one gets from googling that name appear to be mirrors from this article. Its possible that the Les Marshall involved is a Labour Party leader in the UK. http://www.mansfieldtoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=722&ArticleID=670352 -- or. maybe, that's not him at all. --Christofurio 01:24, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

is this passage ok?

Also, democracies are often slow to react when in war situations. This is because of the bearocracy a motion needs to pass through to be passed in both houses of Congress. As opposed to the monarchies of old, which could immediately mobilize, in a democracy a declaration of war must be passed in Congress (the president can command a surprise attack, but it must be cleared within 60 days by the Congress). If a draft is instituted, people can protest it. In spite of these things, or perhaps because of them, democracies are able to retain their postion of power without being overrun by enemies.

not hall democracies have houses called "Congress" and the law of 60 days can be referred only to US.. is it?

It is neither English nor true (consider, for example, how long the French took to decide to get involved in the American Revolution). Other than that, and its deep unawareness of the world outside the United States, I see no problems with it. -- Septentrionalis

Actually, even as it now revised, it could use an actual example of democratic slowness. The United States declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941. Septentrionalis

I already revised this passage before I noticed you asking here. Is my revision ok?  :) — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 21:59, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Elections as Rituals

This section is full of POV.

"Elections have often been used by authoritarian regimes or dictatorships to give a false sense of democracy."

Is this just a problem in countries which we like to perceive as authoritarian or dictatorial, or are these just weasel words used to justify certain countries' foreign policy? Can we not think of such things happening closer to home?

"restrictions on who is allowed to stand for election"

This happens in the UK. You aren't allowed to stand if you're under 21 (despite the age of majority being 18), in gaol, a lunatic (this has a lot of room for abuse - actually, it doesn't happen much, but it theoretically could), a Peer of the Realm, or if you've been convicted of vote-rigging within the last five years.

"restrictions on the true amount of power that elected representatives are allowed to hold, or the policies that they are permitted to choose while in office"

Again, this happens in Britain. Local government is only allowed to do what central government explicitly says it may do; anything else is "ultra vires". Much of the influence behind central government's policies in Britain is exerted by unelected officials, who have the great advantage of being permanent, and therefore know how to work the system far better than the (extremely indirectly) elected ministers.

"voting which is not truly free and fair (e.g., through intimidation of those voting for particular candidates)"

Like the UK Labour Party's Birmingham-wide scheme of electoral fraud for which three of their councillors got convicted in an extremely readable High Court Judgement earlier this year.

"or most simply through falsification of the results"

And then they found boxes of uncounted votes hidden in a store-room in Birmingham Council House.

So does this mean the UK is a dictatorship or has an authoritarian regime? Of course not. I would therefore suggest that this section gets re-written into a more general limitations of democracy section.

Phlogistomania 15:15, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Original Greek

It might be good to provide a transliteration of the original greek in the etymology of the word. This helps people to whom the letters appear gibberish with pronouncing the words.—Kbolino 23:40, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine and the meaning of NPOV

Tell me, Ultramarine, which part of Wikipedia's NPOV policy do you have trouble understanding? You may present the arguments of right-wing think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the CATO Institute as much as you like, but, given the extremely controversial nature of their work, claiming that they "prove" anything - and removing opposing arguments, is nothing but crude insertion of POV. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 23:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

They do not claim, they present a statistical study. This is science, not discussion arguments. Provide your own peer-reviewed studies or keep quiet. Ultramarine 23:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I do not have a multi-million dollar propaganda machine at my disposal. But that is irrelevant. You present your studies, I present my counter-examples, and everyone goes home happy. What are your objections? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 00:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

No, present peer-reviewed studies, not your original research. Furthermore, Sweden and Canda are very capitalist nations. But a few isolated nations do not present evidence for a statistcal tendency, which you do not seem to understand. And the study shows causation. Ultramarine 00:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I never claimed to present evidence for a statistcal tendency. Merely counter-examples. They exist, so they should be mentioned. And I don't care what the study shows - this is wikipedia, not CATO-pedia. Would you like me to dig up various studies from the Soviet Union on similar issues, and affirm that they prove this and that? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 00:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

My points, in case you haven't noticed, are the following:

• Counter-examples should be mentioned.
• No conclusion either for or against your proposition should be drawn. This is the essence of NPOV. But I shouldn't be suprised that you don't understand it. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 00:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Explained statistcal tendency and that are exceptions to such a tendency. However, present another peer-reviewed study if you want to argue against the conclusions. NPOV does not mean that non-scientific arguments should be presented as equal to scientific ones. Ultramarine 00:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

True enough; but it also does not mean that one side's ostensibly scientific studies should be held as the absolute truth that is to be endorsed without question. And I still wonder what you would think of peer review if all available reviewers were from the Soviet Union. In any case, I'm trying to work towards a compromise on the article. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 00:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Please follow Wikipedia policy. If you want to argue against a peer-reviewed study, present your own. And again, Sweden and Canada are very capitalist countries with very high scores on economic freedom. Ultramarine 00:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that it was Wikipedia policy to gag anyone and censor any arguments not backed up by a peer-reviewed study. By that logic, some articles shouldn't even exist. Oh, and by the way, the Heritage Foundation does not have a monopoly on the definition of "capitalism". Many - such as myself - do not regard their Index of Economic Freedom as an accurate measure of a country's "capitalist-ness". Therefore, refrain from making such statements as "a country with a high Index is very capitalist". -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 00:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I do not argue that all arguments in Wikipedia should be backed by peer-review. But arguments against such peer-reviewd studies should not be given equal weight unless they are backed by other studies. This is standard practice in science. And I mentioned that it is capitalism measured with Index of economic freedom. Ultramarine 00:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)