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All discussion up through December 2004 has been archived.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)

I agree that a section on the problem of tyranny of the majority should be kept in the article on democracy, even if there is a separate article on ToM. How long will this page be locked, and who will decide that it is ready to be unlocked, the majority? 8^) --172.193.184.192 16:17, 7 August 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)

In the old times democracy was a form of government where decisions were taken by the people (including minority) while here someone decided to define democracy as government of majority, that for me is a correct definition of dictatorship. During Italian Fascism and German Nazism the majority was together with the government, like in Saddam Hussein's Iraq and in the USA of GW Bush. Maybe English speaking people are no more able to understand the meaning of democracy, or too many people had the head washed by the propaganda on TV and media. Horrible to say, but this is what I see.--Truman Burbank 12:14, 29 August 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)

If we are refering mosly to the american style of democracy, we can see that it doesn't allways work. Whenever some point has multiple sides with the same amount of support then nothing happens. Also when the electorial college gets involved sometimes the more popular side with the people doesn't even win (take the american election between Geroge W. Bush and Al Gore; Gore was more popular but Bush won). Now don't go saying that I am a trator to democracy, it usually works but I am providing a point to help keep the neutrality of this article. Andrew D White 05:55, August 5, 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-reviewed 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)

The problem is that you refuse to give any weight to arguments against your studies. Now, do we have an agreement that exceptions should be mentioned, together with the fact that such exceptions are not excluded by a statistical trend? Do we also have agreement that the fact that correlation is not causation should also be mentioned? (in case you haven't noticed, I mentioned it is relation to democracy and famine, not your studies) -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 00:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Statistical tendency is explained now. You correct about correlation regarding famines. Ultramarine 00:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

In your rush to edit, you muddled my presentation of two different theories (1. Prosperity causes democracy; 2. Capitalism causes prosperity). That needs to be sorted out... -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 00:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Please try to work with me for a compromise here. Blatantly POV sentences are unacceptable and will be reverted. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Clearly all attempts to reason with you have failed. Very well, we'll have to call in a neutral moderator. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Do that. I will resist your attempts to remove the results of peer-reviewed studies you do not like. Ultramarine 01:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I do not wish to remove anything; last time I checked, it was you who refused to allow counter-arguments, and insisted that your studies should be officially endorsed by wikipedia. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I have added numerous of your arguments to the article. I only resists your attempts to remove the results of peer-reviewed studies that you do not like. Ultramarine 01:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Very well, let's try this one last time before I call it a day... And let's set a basic ground rule for the future: Every time one of us reverts, he makes a list of objections on the talk page. Do we have an agreement? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I have justified my edits here and on the edit summaries and will continue to do so in the future. I have included your relevant arguments but will not accept deletion of the results of peer-reviewed studies just because you do not like the results. Added another reference. Ultramarine 01:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Please quote the exact arguments that I have deleted. Also, stop confusing my examples of India and Brunei (which refer to democracy-prosperity) with those of Sweden/Canada vs. Chile/Estonia (which refer to capitalism-prosperity and therefore your studies) -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Deletion "However, such a causation has been established in some studies of the Index of Economic Freedom and democracy, as noted above." Established in peer-reviewed studies, they do not claim but state.
• Misunderstanding of statistics " This has been criticized by giving examples such as India (which is democratic but arguably not prosperous) or Brunei (which has a high GDP but has never been democratic)." That is not arguments against a statistical tendency.
• False argument "There are obvious exceptions - for example, many wealthy democracies, such as Sweden or Canada, are far less capitalist and practice far more state regulations on the market than poorer nations such as Chile or Estonia" Sweden and Canada score very high on economic freedom which the studies use. Thus, this can not be used as critique of the studies methodology. Ultramarine 01:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, at least now we have something to work with. I'll number them:

1. Redundant sentence; it does not belong at the end of the section and I moved the mention of causality higher up, in the relevant position. Also, NPOV means that verbs such as "claims", "argues" etc. are preferable.
2. They're not supposed to be arguments against a statistical tendency, they're supposed to be counter-examples.
3. Sweden and Canada score high, but lower than Chile and Estonia. That was my argument, and it is entirely correct.

-- Mihnea Tudoreanu 02:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• 1. Science does not claim. Please provide studies supporting your position instead of deleting scientific results.
• 2. A counter-example is very different from an exception to a statistcal tendency. A counter-example shows that something is false, which these exceptions do not.
• 3. Sweden and Canda are not "far" less capitalist according to the methodology of the studies. They support the theory since they are capitalist and prosperous. Ultramarine 02:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

1. Your studies are not science. Any attempt to present them as such is pure POV.
2. Very well then, replace the name 'counter-example' with 'exception' in my edits.
3. Very well then, remove the word 'far'. And the theory is not that "capitalist countries are prosperous". The theory is that more capitalist countries are more prosperous than less capitalist ones. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 10:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• 1. They are science, published in peer-reviewed journals, often by researchers independent of think-thanks.
• 2. You can not criticze a statistical tendency with exceptions unless you use statistics. And you do not.
• 3. No, the theory is regarding whether more capitalist countries have more economic growth and if this causes democracy. Ultramarine 12:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine, you are removing the summary of modernization theory's perspective on democratization, on of the most influential schools of thought on the subject, and I suggest that you do not continue. [2] If you are unfamiliar with this literature, read Lipset, Rustow, and Prezworksi and stop reverting. 172 | Talk 02:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Please give peer-reviewed studies supporting your claims. And I have not removed anything supported in statistcal studies. Ultramarine 03:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Go to Jstor and do a search for Lipset, Rustow, and Prezworksi, along with "modernization theory" and you will find scores of peer review journals. Stop removing content on an important area of research because you are unfamiliar with the literature. 172 | Talk 14:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Several of the mentioned authors are included in my references. If you want to cite other authors or studies, it is you who should do the job, not I. I suggest reading this [3], the third section, page 18-20. Ultramarine 14:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Do you even know what you're arguing? You're saying that there should be no summary of modernization theory's perspective on democratization (that wealth causes democracy, not the other way around) because the authors appear in the references. Otherwise you would not be removing the content restored here You're saying that the article is sufficiently balanced so long as we include some authors in references, despite never citing them or mentioning their work. I'm sorry, I'm not going to let you get away with censoring everything that does not emanate from right-wing think-tanks like the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. 172 | Talk 14:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

It is you who should include claimed studies supporting your ideas, not I. Again, my references mentions several of your authors. And the index of economic freedom have been used in hundreds of studies by researchers not affiliated with think thanks. Ultramarine 15:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Bullshit. There are claimed studies on modernization theory than you can imagine. The criterion for including information in this article is not whether or not it corresponds with your ideological right-wing worldview. 172 | Talk 15:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, you should include studies that you claim support your theory. And your ignoring the massive amount of studies that support my position. Ultramarine 15:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I suggest reading this [4], the third section, page 18-20. Ultramarine 04:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Go to Jstor and do a search for Lipset, Rustow, and Prezworksi along with modernization theory yourself. You are not going to get away with removing any reference to modernization theory with an argument from ignorance. 172 | Talk 15:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Some of these authors are mentioned in my references. And it is you who should add studies that you claim support your position. And you are ignoring the many studies that support my position. Ultramarine 15:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The fact that you (and the people whose views you support) disagree with an argument is not ground for removing that argument, Ultramarine. I have offered various compromises [5] [6], all of which were rejected. As such, I can only treat you as a POV warrior and wait for more third party comments or even arbitration. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 10:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

You seem to think that you have the right to distort peer-reviewed studies just because you do not like the results. Please read the above link that give numerous additional studies regarding economic and politic freedom. I have included several of you arguments but will not allow you to remove or misrepresent results you do not like. Ultramarine 12:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Nothing is being distorted. And you have not included any of my arguments - you keep confusing the India/Brunei example with the Sweden and Canada vs. Chile and Estonia. Also, again I ask you, would you be so quick to defend parallel studies done in the Soviet Union? Social sciences are not hard science, and never have been. Here's what we're going to do: I've offered numerous compromises and you rejected all of them. Now it's your turn to offer compromises and my turn to reject the ones I deem inappropriate. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 12:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I have answered above. I will mention Sweden and Canada since you do not seem to understand what the Index study or have found. Ultramarine 13:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

---

On a related note, have you noticed that our dispute has resulted in a rather lengthy discussion of economic freedom in an article that is supposed to be about democracy? Perhaps we should move the whole thing elsewhere, such as to the Index of Economic Freedom article (and leave a link here pointing to it). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Alright, hopefully we've each had time to think this through, and cool heads will prevail. When you really look at it, our dispute is focused on a relatively tiny part of the article, and it's a little off-topic as well (see my comment above). The points I am trying to make are the following:

1. Controversial findings by groups that are well known to be biased (such as CATO) should not be presented as established fact. If CATO made a study that says X, the article shouldn't state "X is true". It should state "CATO has made a study that allegedly proves X is true". This is a general principle, and applies to any controversial information.
2. Arguments from all sides should be presented. None of them should be endorsed, and none of them should be dismissed. The fact that you believe an argument to be flawed is not grounds for removing it. After all, if it IS flawed, then our readers will notice, so there's nothing for you to worry about. Remember, our goal here is to report various opinions and points of view. This is social science, not hard science.

-- Mihnea Tudoreanu 07:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, most of the researchers and studies are independent of any right-wing think thank and are peer-reviewed. Do not one more time ignore that I have stated this. If you want to argue against the results of peer-review, cite your own studies. And do not remove the references to the studies. Ultramarine 05:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

There is no rule in wikipedia that says one can only argue against peer-reviewed studies with other peer-reviewed studies. Further, peer-review is not part of the scientific method and says nothing of the scientific value of the study. A thousand years ago, a study claiming that the Sun revolves around the Earth could have passed peer-review with flying colours. Your insistence on pushing your POV has got us into this mess in the first place. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 07:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed studies are today considered the golden standard in science. Your removal of the supporting studies, your false statements about who the researchers are, your removal of some of the results, and your mistatements about exceptions are attempts to hide scientific results that do not fit with Marxist theory. Ultramarine 07:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, they are not scientific just because they are peer reviewed. They do not follow the scientific method. Statistics may reinforce a certain view, but they do not prove anything in and of themselves. Read Robert A West's critique of your obsession with peer review. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 08:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine and 3RR

Just like on Communist state, Ultramarine is able to assert ownership over yet another article through his willingness to violate the 3RR. 172 | Talk 15:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I have decided to copy his strategy and revert at nauseaum. If it attracts the attention of an admin, good. Arbitration is precisely what we need here. If both myself and Ultramarine are banned from editing the article, good. Since he's the only one pushing a POV, and since all I am trying to do is restore neutrality, I am certain someone else will pick up my NPOV-ing work once Ultramarine is no longer allowed to vandalize the article. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 15:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The Marxists have stopped even trying to explain their deletions of the results of peer-reviewed studies. Ultramarine 16:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I will revert until either you understand the need for neutrality, or we both get banned. Those "studies" of yours are pure propaganda and you know it. There's nothing wrong with propaganda, as long as wikipedia doesn't endorse it. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Mihnea, don't break the 3RR, just report it on the admin noticeboard each time he does it. He is giving himself himself enough rope to hang himself, so copying his strategy might be a bad idea in the long-run. I've seen way too many good users leave because of trolls. 172 | Talk 16:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Very well, I will stop reverting. But I sincerely hope an admin comes by soon. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

It might take a while, but it will happen since I've been notifying individual admins. Eventually we'll have 48 hours of relief to clean up his mess. 172 | Talk 16:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Inaccuracy on this page

It is a poltical urban legend - spread often by conservatives - that the "founding fathers" used Democracy to refer solely to direct Democracy. This is not true, there are numerous citable examples of the concept of Democracy meaning a Republic where the people are the soveriegn body. For example, during the debates over the Bill of Rights. Among all of the other things that need to be changed, this gross inaccuracy - how ever often repeated - needs to be corrected. Stirling Newberry - Bopnews 06:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Urban legend? That's exactly how they used the term, and diffentiated it from republicanism. For example, Madison in Fed Paper 10: "The greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter" And, "Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,--is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it." ...That whole paper is about protecting individuals FROM democracy. In a democracy the majority IS the law, wherease in a republic the majority is limited BY the law. RJII 00:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The legend is that direct democracy was the only meaning of "democracy". False; consider " the strong and the weak parts of our republican institutions, and the excellence of a representative democracy compared with the misrule of kings", from Jefferson's letters. This is associated with the other half-truth: that all the Founders regarded direct democracy as an inevitable evil, or necessarily lawless. Stating a half-truth unqualified is worse than a lie. Septentrionalis 13:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

So you're saying some of the founding fathers would use the word "democracy" when they were actually referring to a republic. Ok ..just semantics. But, wait, Jefferson qualified it as "representative" democracy ..that's a republic. RJII 15:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC) I just looked at the article and that's what it says: "There is another definition of democracy, particularly in constitutional theory and in historical usages and especially when considering the works of the American "Founding Fathers." According to this usage, the word 'democracy' refers solely to direct democracy, whilst a representative democracy where representatives of the people govern in accordance with a constitution is referred to as a 'republic.'" So, no problem. RJII 16:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The question is, whether this issue belongs on this page at all. Other countries also have divisions about what democracy is, but this one is specific to the USA. A separate article on democracy in America is not a bad idea.Ruzmanci 17:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Judicial Legislation under common law

Most of you laymen (under legal context) won't recognise that the appellate level courts are doing much work as legislators when it comes to the law of tort. Perhaps someone learned in the civil law could give a stab at the breach of the separation of powers.

I'd like to add "democratic control"

Hi, I think it might be useful to write something about "democratic control" which is the earth of any real democracy. I would like to add the following text, but since I'm new to wiki (and my English is not very good), I'd like to have from you any remarks about it. Thank you very much from Italy, Lele Talk 13:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

==Democratic control==

All democratic constitutions explicitly state or imply that the power belongs to the people. They also state that the people delegate their power to some representatives which temporarily rule the country in behalf of the people. People's temporary representatives are choosen by means of elections. Democratic Control is the control that the people exercise over their representatives to verify how they get and use the power. Without democratic control democracy may easily degenerate into oligarchy or dictatorship. A very important role in democratic control is played by media, thus real independence of media from political end economic powers is widely thought to be crucial for any democracy.

There are two issues here. Popular sovereignty is the usual name for rule by 'the people'. I added it to the section, and changed the sub-heading. What 'the people' do between elections, does not make a country more or less democratic, in the usual sense. Voter apathy is not a disqualifier for democracy. Media and access to information are covered in the Liberal Democracy section.Ruzmanci 18:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

<<<

Dear Ruzmanci, I hope to have discovered why you have completely cancelled the term "democratic control". In my mother tongue, italian, "controllare" means "to monitor", while in english to control has a more active meaning than simply watching what happens. Thus I should have written "democratic monitoring" instead of "democratic control".

So do you think is the following acceptable?

==democratic monitoring==

All democratic constitutions explicitly state or imply that the power belongs to the people (popular sovereignty). They also state that the people delegate their power to some representatives which temporarily rule the country in behalf of the people. People's temporary representatives are choosen by means of elections. Democratic monitoring is the monitoring that the people exercise over their representatives to check how they get and use the power. Without democratic monitoring democracy may easily degenerate into oligarchy or dictatorship. For democratic monitoring to be possible, institutions must have open and understandable decision-making processes (transparency) and must permit access to documents (openness). Secrecy and hidden decision-making undermine democracy. A very important role in democratic monitoring is played by media, thus a real independence of media from politics is widely thought to be vital for any democracy.

The few sentences before the definition of democratic monitoring are written to stress why the people has the right to monitor what's going on in any public institution. We can find a way to merge your new section "Popular sovereignty" with my text above. I refer to Media as a way to make public the decisions and the acts of the ruling government which otherwise would be not noticed by common people and thus couldn't be monitored by them. Lele 08:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC) (talk)

Monitoring is not a good term either, it is normally used to describe monitoring of elections. There are four separate issues in your addition, that is the problem, they should be split for clarity...

• popular sovereignty
• the distinction between direct and representative democracy, which is already noted in the intro, and also in the section on American use of the term 'Republic'
• freedom of the press, and access to information. These are now considered qualities of a liberal democracy, and they belong in the section on Liberal Democracy.
• citizen participation in decision-making between elections. This is not considered to be a defining characteristic of democracy, so you can not say that otherwise a country is an oligarchy. You may not agree with it, but the usual definition of liberal democracy implies that free and fair elections, every four years, make a country democratic - even if voters do nothing in between elections.Ruzmanci 10:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Recent radical rewrite

I'm starting this section for the author of the recent radical rewrite to explain all the changes to the article. My objection is that the changes wiped out a lot of the work of a large community of authors, without explaining the changes here first. My request is simple: Just explain why you're making the changes you're making in each area. And if the consensus is that they're good, they will sail through, no harm, no foul. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 21:07, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

There is no 'community of authors' which owns this article, all users can contribute, and no prior approval is required for Wikipedia edits. The logic behind each change to existing text was given is the history. and in fact very little was removed, most was just moved. Some sections were added, and no reason has been given to simply delete them. There is no requirement to post every addition on the talk page for prior approval.

The older version of the article was too Americo-centric, and was not comprehensive, it did not even include a description of what a democractic system in fact is. It also needed a clean-up, since things had been added piecemeal. Items specifically related to liberal democracy belong in that section Ruzmanci 14:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Description of democracy

'Essential elements of a democracy' was added, since much of this was not covered in the article. The discussion page is not the place to post the content of the article, but since that has been requested (see above) here are the elements of democracy, as added to the article:

• there is a demos, a group which takes political decisions by some form of collective procedure. Non-members of the demos do not participate. In modern democracies the demos is the nation, and citizenship is usually equivalent to membership.

• there is a territory where the decisions apply, and where the demos is resident. In modern democracies, the territory is the nation-state, and since this corresponds (in theory) with the homeland of the nation, the demos and the reach of the democratic process neatly coincide. Colonies of democracies are not considered democratic in themselves, if they are governed from the colonial motherland: demos and territory do not coincide.

• there is a decision-making procedure, which is either direct (for instance a referendum) or indirect (for instance election of a representative government). There are other procedures, including surviving citizens assemblies.

• the procedure is regarded as legitimate by the demos, implying that its outcome will be accepted. Political legitimacy is the willingness of the population to accept decisions of the state (government and courts) which go against personal choices or interests. It is especially relevant for democracies, since elections have both winners and losers.

• the procedure is effective in the minimal sense that it can be used to change the government, assuming there is sufficient support for that change. Showcase elections, pre-arranged to re-elect the existing regime, are not democratic.

• the demos has a long-term unity and continuity, from one decision-making round to the next - without secession of the minority.

• in the case of nation-states, the state must be sovereign: democratic elections are pointless if an outside authority can overrule the result. In Europe, eurosceptic nationalists argue that the European Union does exactly that, and the EU has created a parallel democratic structure in the European Parliament. That means that EU member states do, to a certain extent, have two forms of government, and the status of a 'democratic Europe' is contentious and unresolved.

== "is not a democracy== huh?

Frankly I don't see the value of a section on the expression "blankety blank is not a democracy" especially given the random collection of examples which seem to make no noticeable point as here. --Christofurio 00:26, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

If democracy as a value is discussed, then it could be pointed out that some organisations - like the Catholic Church - find it inappropriate. But this stub section is indeed a pointless addition.Ruzmanci 18:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I removed it. If anyone feels it is desparately needed, they can always paste it back.Ruzmanci 12:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Moyen and Posner

This comment needs explanation its significance for democracy in general...

Bill Moyen argues that "democracy can't exist without an informed public" in his preface to "The Future of Media". Commenting on this, Richard Posner states, "If this is true, the United States is not a democracy (which may be Moyers's dyspeptic view). Only members of the intelligentsia, a tiny slice of the population, deliberate on public issues." [7]

Who is Bill Moyen? Who is Richard Posner? How are non-American readers supposed to have the background knowledge to place them in context?Ruzmanci 11:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

War for democracy

The section on advantages and disadvantages, by definition, contains some disadvantages of democracy. It is therefore not right to purge it of anything which might show democracy in a negative light. Recent edits on the 'democratic peace theory' wrongly defined it as relating to liberal democracies - some studies do, but others don't. The reference to R.J. Rummel was deleted without reason, and his definitional criteria in one study were falsely attributed to the theory as a whole. Democratic peace theory does indeed include research results showing that democracies prefer to go to war with non-democracies. If you think democracy should be spread by war - as many people do - then this is a good thing. Others disagree, and the research itself is also disputed. However it is not in dispute that this result is indeed cited in publications on the democratic peace theory, and that it is openly discussed as an explanation for the observed correlations, usually under the factor 'alliances'. So there is no valid reason to remove this point, nor the historically and factually accurate information that some people favour wars for democracy, and favour regime change on the grounds of 'dictatorship'. There is also no reason to delete reference to relevant research papers. Ruzmanci 10:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Cite you claims with studies. All the statements from the text in my version are taken from the text in full DPT article that has an extensive references to studies [8]. Ultramarine 11:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)