NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm curious to know what people think is the most important quality of a democracy and if political parties like the Democrats (U.S.) or the New Democratic Party (Canada) represent this idea. Also, what steps are required to ensure a democracy remains a democracy.

Er... well... a democracy is a government in which decisions are made by the people or the officials they elect. I don't know anything about other countries, but in the U.S., the democratic party has absolutely nothing to do with a democratic government, just as republicans have absolutely nothing to do with a republic.

In order to keep a democracy functional, the country must be quite small. All things must be either decided in council or by elected officials, and when the country and the number of officials needed to be elected grows to large, things get out of hand and hard to deal with. You get people just voting for whoever the hell's first on the ballot, because there are too damn many to bother with. Plus the whole trouble with voting. With these problems comes a bureaucracy, and then, whoop--no more democracy! Also, you've got to have ways of keeping the majority in check, because get the minorities too pissed off, and you've got a revolution.

(Republics work best >_> <_<)

Now which definition are you talking about, Ancient Athenian Democracy or Modern World Democracy?

Democracy in all forms is based on the logically flawed concept that if a bunch of people are for something and only minorities disagree, that something should be given the green light, or be seen as "correct" or right.

In other words, the individual is given less priority, morally and legally, than the largest groups of individuals.

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, in which the 51% may take away the rights of the other 49%
Thomas Jefferson

Now which definition are you talking about, Ancient Athenian Democracy or Modern World Democracy?

If you want to list the various definitions you're aware of and point out the difference that would be great.

Democracy in all forms is based on the logically flawed concept that if a bunch of people are for something and only minorities disagree, that something should be given the green light, or be seen as "correct" or right.

In other words, the individual is given less priority, morally and legally, than the largest groups of individuals.

So what would be a more efficient/altruistic alternative?

Er... well... a democracy is a government in which decisions are made by the people or the officials they elect. I don't know anything about other countries, but in the U.S., the democratic party has absolutely nothing to do with a democratic government, just as republicans have absolutely nothing to do with a republic.

In order to keep a democracy functional, the country must be quite small. All things must be either decided in council or by elected officials, and when the country and the number of officials needed to be elected grows to large, things get out of hand and hard to deal with. You get people just voting for whoever the hell's first on the ballot, because there are too damn many to bother with. Plus the whole trouble with voting. With these problems comes a bureaucracy, and then, whoop--no more democracy! Also, you've got to have ways of keeping the majority in check, because get the minorities too pissed off, and you've got a revolution.

(Republics work best >_> <_<)

What is the difference between a Republic and a Democracy?

Actually a democracy is where the PEOPLE rule (where the people make laws and decide by themselves, voting on every single issue, no candidates). Very few places have actual democracies. What the US has is a republic, where we ELECT candidates to make descisions for us. Mostly cause we have too much people in the country to have an actual democracy.

Don't get confused and don't let people tell you that the US has a democracy.
Correct them ;)

So what would be a more efficient/altruistic alternative?

Dictatorship, run by me, of course.

Actually a democracy is where the PEOPLE rule (where the people make laws and decide by themselves, voting on every single issue, no candidates). Very few places have actual democracies. What the US has is a republic, where we ELECT candidates to make descisions for us. Mostly cause we have too much people in the country to have an actual democracy.

Don't get confused and don't let people tell you that the US has a democracy.
Correct them ;)

Do you think it is possible to maintain a democracy with a population and land area as large as the U.S.?

On a small scale democracy works, but on a large-scale it degenerates into mob rule.

On a small scale democracy works, but on a large-scale it degenerates into mob rule.

What causes this degeneration?

While a pure democracy does whatever the will of the majority happens to be (and the minority be damned) I think a system in which we have majority rule, but minority rights is quite important.

I'm far more in favor of a Democratic-Republican (no relation to any political party living or dead) form of government.

What causes this degeneration?
Group identification is probably one of the things. You can always group people together, and get them to think that they are better than another group. Be it race, sports teams or cola preferences, it can be done.

Do you think it is possible to maintain a democracy with a population and land area as large as the U.S.?

Countries as large as the US don't work period. At least not under any system that can be considered free.

Group identification is probably one of the things. You can always group people together, and get them to think that they are better than another group. Be it race, sports teams or cola preferences, it can be done.

Do you believe that all people, regardless of ethnicity or religious background share common fundamental needs and desires?

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, in which the 51% may take away the rights of the other 49%
Thomas Jefferson

Some other Jefferson quotes:

""The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1817"

"The measures of the fair majority... ought always to be respected." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1792. ME 8:397"

"I subscribe to the principle, that the will of the majority honestly expressed should give law." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:332"

"All... being equally free, no one has a right to say what shall be law for the others. Our way is to put these questions to the vote, and to consider that as law for which the majority votes." --Thomas Jefferson: Address to the Cherokee Nation, 1809"

"[We acknowledge] the principle that the majority must give the law." --Thomas Jefferson to William Carmichael, 1788"

"It is the multitude which possess force, and wisdom must yield to that." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816"


I could go on. The quote at the top of the page was probably not Jefferson's in fact. Jefferson had entirely contrary views.


Anyway, on to democracies. A democracy is a system where the people, by majority votes, choose how a country is run. That is either direct democracy, where they all vote on decisions (ancient Greece, kind of) or an elective democracy, in which the people vote in their representatives to govern for them for a certain length of time. Both are democracies in my language. I have never met any people in the UK who would say that the UK, the USA or any Western country was not a 'democracy.' If some people in the US have decided that the word 'democracy' is limited to a direct democracy then that's nice for them, but it's our language so tough titty. :p

If a 'republic' is a government of elected officials, then what is the word that should be used for a state where there is no monarch? Because that's actually what a republic is.

Some other Jefferson quotes:




I could go on. The quote at the top of the page was probably not Jefferson's in fact. Jefferson had entirely contrary views.


Anyway, on to democracies. A democracy is a system where the people, by majority votes, choose how a country is run. That is either direct democracy, where they all vote on decisions (ancient Greece, kind of) or an elective democracy, in which the people vote in their representatives to govern for them for a certain length of time. Both are democracies in my language. I have never met any people in the UK who would say that the UK, the USA or any Western country was not a 'democracy.' If some people in the US have decided that the word 'democracy' is limited to a direct democracy then that's nice for them, but it's our language so tough titty. :p

If a 'republic' is a government of elected officials, then what is the word that should be used for a state where there is no monarch? Because that's actually what a republic is.

Do you think with modern telecommunications and the internet network a direct democracy could be established in a country as large as the U.S.?

It would probably be way too vulnerable to fraud, I reckon. So no. Anyway, direct democracies aren't as good as indirect ones, so I don't see why anyone would want one.

It would probably be way too vulnerable to fraud, I reckon. So no. Anyway, direct democracies aren't as good as indirect ones, so I don't see why anyone would want one.

To me it seems that a direct democracy would make people feel more involved in public affairs. If you have a representative government with a representative for one hundred thousand people, how connected to the government does one of those costituents feel?

Actually a democracy is where the PEOPLE rule (where the people make laws and decide by themselves, voting on every single issue, no candidates). Very few places have actual democracies. What the US has is a republic, where we ELECT candidates to make descisions for us. Mostly cause we have too much people in the country to have an actual democracy.

Don't get confused and don't let people tell you that the US has a democracy.
Correct them ;)ha!

I learn something new every day.

thx yayz0rs.

Do you think with modern telecommunications and the internet network a direct democracy could be established in a country as large as the U.S.?

Possibly - but why should one want that ?
It is not likely though - you are assuming that people want to be informed about their countires policies, while the majority is more interested in when his garbage will be picked up.

Democracy is the worst form of government ever, except for all the other ones we've tried. :D

I dislike pure democracy.

It is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for lunch.

Technically the United States more resemples Rome before they turned into an Empire. The United States is not in fact a Democracy but is indeed a Republic but people are too lazy to have their facts straight before they start arguing and just spout off how bad they hate the Bush administration.
:headbang:

True democracy is impossible unless the world was compsed entirely of countries the size of Andora. When we call a country or party Democratic it usually implies they have aspire to the principle of democracy as much as possible. The first democts, the Ancient Greeks would have been horrified by the term Demos (people) cracy (rule) which they would have taken as mob rule - see French Revoulution. The USA is not a republic in the Roman sense, but rather a a federation of smaller republics, with a para-mount republic: Washington. Britain is not a democracy and in fact only since Churchill have we used the term in Britain (most oftern by Tony Blair, who has worked most hard to undermine the democratic elimentsof our country) because we are really a Constitutional Monarchy, as is Canada, New Zealand and Australia, Holland, Sweden etc. This really means that the monarch ceeds his/her powers to a representative body of the population in exchange for also giving up the responsibilities of running the country. While I don't agree with the system, it works because the representatives (PM and ministers) lack the soverengty to fundimentally change the country, but the Monarch lacks the facility impose tyranny. See Swaziland and now Nepal as the last two examples of what it used to be like.

Do you believe that all people, regardless of ethnicity or religious background share common fundamental needs and desires?

Fundamental ones, yes.

Problem is, too many people are looking for protections for their more derivative desires. e.g. looking to ban gay marriages, even though gay marriages will not affect them.

Personally I think that prohibitive laws should be like senate votes. If you don't have 2/3 support, you don't have the law. This would include laws that used to enjoy 2/3 support, but now only hang on by a thread. If only 55% wants to keep an antiquated law passed on lies and propoganda (like marijuana prohibition) then you shouldn't have to wait until 66% of the population sees reason before repealing the law. Once support for the law drops below 66% the law should be dropped too.

(From Wikipedia.org (http://wikipedia.org/)

The term 'democracy'—or more precisely, the original (ancient Greek) version of the word—was coined in ancient Athens in the 5th century BC. That state is generally seen as the earliest example of a system corresponding to some of the modern notions of democratic rule. However, many do not see ancient Athens as a democracy since only a minority had the right to vote, women, slaves, and foreigners being excluded from the franchise. Only an estimated 16% of the total population had the right to vote.

All citizens debated topics until a final decision was made everyone was happy about, good for small scale cities like Ancient Athens, but today it wouldn't even work in a city as small as Austin.

Liberal democracy
In contemporary usage, 'democracy' is often understood to be the same as 'liberal democracy.' While democracy per se implies only a system of government defined and legitimized by elections, modern democracy can be characterized more fully by the following institutions:

A constitution which limits the powers and controls the formal operation of government, whether written, unwritten or a combination of the two
Election of public officials, conducted in a free and just manner
The right to vote and to stand for election (see also universal suffrage)
Freedom of expression (speech, assembly, etc.)
Freedom of the press and access to alternative information sources
Freedom of association
Equality before the law and due process under the rule of law
Educated citizens informed of their rights and civic responsibilities
A broadly and deeply entrenched civil society
This definition generally comes with qualifications. The decisions taken through elections are taken not by all of the citizenry, but rather by those who choose to participate by voting. In addition, not all citizens are generally permitted to vote. Most democratic nations only extend the vote to those who are above a certain age, typically 18. Some nations also do not permit other categories of people to vote (e.g., current or previously convicted prisoners).

Liberal democracy is sometimes the de facto form of government, while other forms are technically the case; for example, Canada has a monarchy, but is in fact ruled by a democratically elected Parliament.

Some summarize the definition of democracy as being "majority rule with minority rights."

Basically the "mob rule" version.

The definition of the word 'democracy' from the time of ancient Greece up to now has not been constant. In contemporary usage, the term 'democracy' refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative.

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.' This older terminology retains some popularity in U.S. conservative and Libertarian debate.

The original framers of the U.S. Constitution were notably cognizant of what they perceived as a danger of majority rule in oppressing freedom of the individual. (See Tyranny of the majority below). For example, James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10 advocates a republic over a democracy precisely to protect the individual from the majority. [1] (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm) However, at the same time, the framers carefully created democratic institutions and major open society reforms within the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They kept what they believed were the best elements of democracy, but mitigated by a balance of power and a layered federal structure.

Modern definitions of the term 'republic,' however, refer to any state with an elective head of state serving for a limited term, in contrast to most contemporary hereditary monarchies which are representative democracies and constitutional monarchies adhering to parliamentarism. (Older elective monarchies are also not considered to be republics.)

Yay, the one were most familiar with, the Representative Democracy...or the Democratic Republic, whatever. In any case its basically a Republic named a Democracy due to the usual high freedoms its citizens enjoy.

Note: All captions of quotes were written in a 10 minute timespan because I had important business to attend to, so I only read about a paragraph of each and based my definitions on those.