Wow, K-man, you have a short memory - even if it is well defined that doesn't stop a discussion; we tend to ignore the things we take for granted.

And if you don't like the 'sneaky liberals' calling riots in the middle east 'democracy' then a discussion of the term is called for. Not ignoring for the sake of it.

@SD what do you mean by democracy? Is it representative democracy, direct democracy? Some kind of Oligarchy with voting? Or some kind of meritocracy where money measures a person influence in the system?

Sorrrrrry Orthaic...taking my pill.....saying my mantra...hooommmmmmmmm....all is well....hooommmmmm...be at peace....hoommmmmmmmmmm

@Krellin I don't even mean it in that 'leftwing' way, for this conversation although that is an interesting conversation.

@Thanks ora. I was waiting for my own views and first interested in other people's views, but youre questions are exactly the point - which do you think is the most 'democratic' - is it direct, representative etc. beyond this what is the definining feature of a democracy? the ability to vote? and who gets this ability? etc., what do we actually mean when we say democracy? even you krellin, what do you mean, i'm curious.

Well obviously we can't let children vote, because they've never had the ability to do so in the past... but if life begins at conception then maybe pregnant women should have two votes...

what about the land ownership requirement? homeless people can't vote

Land ownership is not a requirement in the US anymore. If it were, most of the population would be unable to vote, living in apartments, condos, or high rises in the city.

homeless people can't vote in the uk certainly, but that was just an example. is a place a democracy if women can't vote? or if a certain race can't vote? just saying 'vote' doesn't help much is all

The UK requires land ownership? What about downtown Londoners who rent flats?

homeless people have a problem with registering to vote, because society tends to discriminate against the homeless without even thinking about it.

(If i'm not mistaken) They are entitled to vote, they just can't get through the bureaucratic barriers.

renting is fine i do believe.

they have a de jure right but de facto they have no provision to

I'm *all* for land ownership as a requirement, or some other "substantive" contribution to society - business owner, etc. But I'm just a big meanie.

Yes, you are.

i'm not arguing about what is right or wrong, but just curious as to what people thought. and fyi krellin, many people think a substantive contribution to a society as a requirement is undemocratic. many in europe think prisoners not being able to vote is undemocratic. so there is a wide scope of opinions among this sea of 'consensus', and i want your actual opinion!

Prisoners waive their constitutional rights. Then again, many police forces anymore don't acknowledge constitutional rights anyway.

Socrates - remember when Obama talked about people having "skin in the game".

"Everybody's going to have to give. Everybody's going to have to have some skin in the game," Obama said

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/01/obama-calls-for-2/

Well I think he was right in Principle. OK, owning land is a bit much, or requirement to own a business…but I certainly think that having to be a positive tax payer is a reasonable requirement (by positive, I mean that you are not getting back so many credits on your tax form that you are gaining money by “paying” taxes). There is a *terrible* and deadly disconnect when those “on the take” from the government can, through their vote, force that government to give to them while others must work.

"Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally" (from wiki). So the idea of limiting who can vote is not undemocratic. As was mentioned above, children can not vote, as they have not demonstrated responsibility. Therefore...someone who is unable to care for themselves without substantial assistance has a questionable ability to vote...imo.

'children can not vote, as they have not demonstrated responsibility.' - well you can show that a teenager's brain is not as developed in some particular areas.

That said, even children who have demonstrated 'responsibility' aren't allowed to vote. So i don't think it is 'because' they haven't proven themselves responsible - better to have a citizenship exam to 'prove' eligiblity; like getting a driving license, if you can't pass the test you can't vote (and then if you're under 18 but CAN pass the test you are not prevented from voting)

But any such test could be heavily biased against any particular point of view...

hi krellin, by this definition, old YJ could not vote...

which may be what you're going for :)

@bo, In many countries in europe voting is not a right one can waive no matter your actions. i remember the uk is in trouble with the EU human rights courts because they don't let prisoners vote even!

@krellin, i'm not an obama fan but i don't disagree, but rights are not earned, you have them without doing anything. PLEASE do not quote what wiki says about democracy, it's an intelectual discourse here! so you think the unemployed shouldn't be able to vote? so you think limiting who can vote is not undemocratic? i wont agree or disagree with you, but then what makes a democracy a democracy? if you can limit who can vote by certain things, can you do it by others (be it by sex or race or religion)? and if you can still be a democracy than what is it that makse a country a democracy? and what is it that stops other countries being a democracy? we have yet to even address the lack of choice we have in our 'democracy' between parties that do very similar things, be it democrat/republican or labour/conservative. what is the difference between this and a one party state where anyone can join the party? in fact one party states often have many diverse opinions in that party and you can vote for people with a whole plethora of views. so please, enlighten me with a set idea of what makes somethign a democracy, and what stops something from being a democracy

@ora, would you really want a test administered to determine who can vote? i can see jim crow coming back here!

@YJ, but this is our consensus democracy no?

Voting is overrated.

More important in a democracy are such things as freedom of the press, freedom of speech and equality between men and women. I'd much rather live in a hypothetical society where I have no right to vote (say... Holland in the 19th century, where only people who payed a certain amount of taxes had the right to vote), but where I have access to objective journalism and where I can speak my mind, rather than in a society like, I don't know, East Germany, where elections were held, but the process was so corrupt, they were absolutely senseless elections.

The idea that democracy means that people immediately have to start voting for all sorts of things is a major mistake on the side of western policy makers. We see this in Egypt, about which I wrote earlier, where the muslim brotherhood took power in parliament and also had the Presidency representing about 52% of the people and then took to writing a new constitution for Egypt where they failed horribly.

It would have been much better for Egypt to bring the best and brightest of the land together (some captains of industry, some professors who were known internationally for their work, a judge with a good reputation etc.) and have them write a constitution through what I immediately admit is a highly undemocratic process. The people could then send a representation to Cairo with the sole purpose of finding a 67% majority on any constitution.

The paradox is that the process I describe above would be described by many as undemocratic, because 1) these experts weren't chosen by the people and 2) an overwhelming 65% majority would still not have been heard, but it would probably have let to a good compromise constitution rather than the mess we see now.

That's why voting is overrated.

Socrates I'll turn it back to you: do you think my under-18. Children should vote? 15 year old? How about a mature 12 year old? An 8 year old. They used to be responsible for their fair share in the farm days, after all. So do you believe in limiting the vote.by.age?

Freedom of the press.is meaningless unless.you are educating someone to do something....I.e..VOTE...mduhhhh....

Socrates, you are also way off track in trying to domain about a lack of ideas to vote for.and attributing that to what Democracy is. If I am a chef in a kitchen but only have ingredients for one kind of pie, I'm still a chef.

A vote is not a human right, and like redhouse said, it's quite overrated. It's simply a way to keep obstinate governments (i.e not people's governments) from taking criticism and potentially finding themselves subjected to overthrow.

@'would you really want a test administered to determine who can vote? i can see jim crow coming back here!'

- ideally i'd like to see young people getting the opportunity to earn their vote early.

@Redhaus: 'More important in a democracy are such things as freedom of the press, freedom of speech and equality between men and women.'

Surely if you can vote to ensure these things then it is fundamental to ensuring the freedoms you desire. And given the fact that desirable freedoms may change over time - like what privacy and freedom of speech means when the internet suddenly changes the ballgame; you can ensure continued 'freedom' or whatever the public understand that to mean.

'access to objective journalism ' - this also becomes a tough one, when there is freedom for everyone to publish whatever they please, you now need a filter to choose the 'most objective' or the most relevant...

@krellin

Nothing duh about that, although I can understand why you think it is duh, you being an American.

Freedom of the press is extremely valuable even if you have no right to vote. A prisoner could do himself a great deal of good by reading objective and freely gathered information about what happens in the world, while still not being allowed to vote.

You are from a country that kicked off being a relatively disciplined and just democracy. George Washington denied himself a certain victory after his second term, because the notion of taking a healthy distance toward power was something very deeply rooted in his vision of society. Why is this? Because many Americans in that day and age where descendants of Great Britain, which, while being a colonial power, had a lot of basic elements of democracy enshrined in its (unwritten) constitution. It conflicted with the way they did business in the Americans, and the conflict was very well observed. Men like Adams, Monroe etc. had excellent training as lawyers, very modern ideas about society, knowledge of the classics etc. They pretty much knew what democracy meant before America became one. It demonstrates the importance of education as well. That's why I believe it's so dangerous that we impose our notion of democracy on arab countries. Not because I believe these countries don't deserve it, or that we shouldn't impose it, but because I think the emphasis shouldn't be on voting, but on creating lasting institutions.

redhouse...your assertion that freedom of the press is a good thing even without something to apply it to (i.e. a VOTE) is silly...sorry.

In the US the freedom of press is an enshrined, protected right SPECIFICALLY because the press is supposed to be the watchdog of the government, that can report on all the goods and ills of the government without fear of retribution. It isn't here so that we can publish books about cupcakes, though that is the side benefit. It is specifically anti-government speech that we seek to protect...and this is the speech that a voter uses to throw out his corrupt officials (if the voter would get off his ass and educate himself).

IN principle, yes, freedom of the press has a great many other benefits...but it was created for one central purpose.

@krellin

It really isn't. You almost present the media as deserving its right to exist as being granted by the government. It should just have that right period (although it should be recognized by the government).

It's valuable to know what happens in the world. It's good to have sports journalism, it reports the records that human beings can hold in running and cycling and the obtained records can be something young sportsmen can one day aspire too (and in that context, yes, it's very sad that so much doping is used in the sports world). It's good to have business journalism, for example, that reports that oil company X spills oil all over the world. They may not break US law, it may not affect US politics, they may not even break the law of wherever they spill the oil, but it allows the citizenship the choice to drive by company X and get gas at company Y.

"IN principle, yes, freedom of the press has a great many other benefits...but it was created for one central purpose."

It really wasn't. It really wasn't "created" at all by some kind of central objective authority and when it was, it didn't necessarily have a political purpose. The right to a free press is recognized by politicians who see that it is complementary to being a free human being. Free human being also allowing the possibility of being entirely disinterested in politics.

I think where most governments fail these days when it comes to democracy is that even if there's a majority vote, often nothing happens. For example: in America, it all boils down to voting for one of two con artists who just do whatever they want. The president has the authority to do a lot of stuff including bypassing laws and all. He's also not bound to some sort of contract to actually do what he promised to do. You can have all the constitution you want but if your president has so much power, all you can do is vote for a new dictator every 4 years. All IMO of course, and it may not be entirely accurate but you get the point. The president rules, not the people.

So if you don't get to vote for the things that actually matter, like drone strike policy, making-up-WMDs-to-invade-Iraq policies and whistle blower policies, I don't bother calling it a democracy. Sadly, I don't have a clue if the same happens in Holland, but at least we are better represented by the government with 20+ (I think?) parties to choose from, and coalitions and all. We can actually look at the ruling parties and see what the majority wants. I still think some stuff here should require voting but doesn't right now though.

before i say anything i want to brag about how i was right that it's not a simple thing we all agree on, there are many differing opinions, and we have yet to talk about many important debates in democracy that ARE CRUCIAL to understanding democracy (such as is it intrinsically good or instrumentally good, is it a simple tyranny of the majority or there to protect minorities, is representative democracy really democratic if you feel no parties represent your choice - often a problem in western societies where we have democrats vs republicans and labour vs conservatives).
@red: So Switzerland didn’t have voting equality until 1970 so wasn’t a democracy until then? You may rather live in such societies red, and there is a question of what is ‘better’, but the question is what is democratic or not. I’m not saying whether it is overrated or not, but my point is for some voting is the defining feature for a democracy. But yes with freedom of speech and freedom of press you obviously don’t mean an unlimited freedom, so where do you curb it? And were the western ‘democracies’ democratic during the world wars when they didn’t let the press print many things? Conversely would a dictatorship that ignores the people be a democracy if it had free press?
Also for you and bo, thinkers like Mill argue about voting as important as a tool to educate and ‘develop’ the people and the community, not saying I agree or disagree but this is a different reason voting is seen as value. Bar the basis of democracy ostensibly being that we should choose who rules over us. And I didn’t say I think voting is a human right, but the European court of human rights has something to say about this…
@krellin: I have been at pains to avoid my opinion throughout, because I do not think it is so interesting. If you must know in my Utopia I would favour a contract of full citizenship that has certain requirements (age most likely not being one of them), which once you agree to and meet the conditions of you can vote. Unfortunately I did not understand your message where you said I was way off track. And with your chef analogy all I can say is that I didn’t get it, but the fact that you and redhouse and many other people in favour of our ‘consensus’ ideas of democracy differ about the key ideas of ‘democracy is telling.

@steephie: your post is a criticism a lot of people use against some 'democracies'.

in general anarchist literature has a lot also about why these 'democracies' are just oppressive, stirner is always a good read here.

Democracy is simply the rule of the people. This is such a hopeless wide definition that it's very easy to claim to be democratic. Most modern 'democracies' are representative democracies, which is actually pretty far from what those in antiquity understood it to mean.

Things like freedom of the press, personal liberty and the rule of law are often linked to, but not an intrinsic part of, democracy. It is theoretically possible to have a meritocracy, technocracy or oligarchy with all of those present. It's just our main examples of them are present in democracies because democracies tend to promote them.

I would point out that just because the US constitution enshrines rights with those associations it doesn't mean the rest of the world does. Freedom of the press is simply the ability of the press to publish and broadcast what it wishes without fear of political reprisal. Voting and democracy don't necessarily have to be involved. A newspaper could have the right to criticise a technocratic government all it likes without fear of restriction.

There is also a strong tendency to think that 'our' democracy is somehow a good thing or a good way of organising things. Most of us in the Western world are taught this from an early age to a frighteningly biased degree. We are taught that democracy means all these things and concepts as if it were inseparable from them. It isn't.

@Hereward77 completely agree with you actually, at least in the sense of criticising the closed minded understanding of democracy, and the bias we are taught concepts with, was what prompted me to start this thread. still it is interesting after such a critique to hear what people think

Equal access to guns regardless of race or creed

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/20/justice/australia-student-killed-oklahoma/index.html

Certainly there is an idea that your vote should be informed, otherwise it isn't free, and if not free then your voting system is undemocratic.

That is extrapolated to mean an educated public and a free press. Along with the right to gather and form organisations (so you can create political parties - though the right to gather and organise hasn't allowed the formation of any influential new parties in the US lately)

It is not that freedom of speech is democratic, it is just the opposite. Also increased freedom of speech tends to empower people who object to their rulers.

There is an example from world war one, where the soldiers in one part of the trenches couldn't talk to those in another; in several places they managed to avoid shooting enemy soldiers, with a tit-for-tat relationship (so if the enemy accidentally hits you, then you fire one shell directly into them, and then go back to missing) - as this was happening spontaenously all along the front it could have ended the war, but the officers kept telling each group that they were the only ones doing it and they'd be executed.

Freedom of speech/communication could have unified soldiers along the front against their officers - but at leas the military never tried to claim it was democratic...

Yes, but that's just an example of how freedom of speech and communication can enhance, improve, or lead to democracy. It does not mean that those concepts are part of the definition of democracy or that they cannot exist without democracy.

Also, if uninformed voting is undemocratic then there is no such thing as a democracy in the modern world. The vast majority of those who vote know little more than one or two policies and whether they like the leader of one of the main parties. Most don't fully understand the political system, the policies they're voting for or have even read the manifesto of the entity they intend to vote for.

My reading of 'free vote' is simply that you may vote for whoever you wish. Ancillary properties of that vote such as electoral system and the amount of information available are important but not intrinsic to the idea.

While I'm sure what you described happened on some occasions I am skeptical of the idea that this could have ended the war or that it was quite as endemic as you suggest. Even if the example is accepted, it just indicates that freedom of speech CAN be associated with democracy. Not that it is an inherent characteristic.

I don't have original data on how common it was, but that isn't really the point.

I agree with you that freedom of speech doesn't mean democracy, my claim is that democracy requires freedom of speech - or else a 'free vote' means nothing.

In the extreme counter-example if is only one candidate on the ballot because only the current encumbent knows how to register as a candidate then the vote is not free.

There must be some shades of grey between a free vote with informed voters, and a system with no freedom of information... Shades of grey, not some black and white NOT 'there is no such thing as a democracy in the modern world.' - just that lack of an informed electorate means a less democratic system - and i admit, it MAY be the responcibility of the citizens to inform themselves. Though again asking them to prove they are informed is not useful for avoiding corruption/discrimination...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_and_let_live_(World_War_I)

Sorry to wind the conversation back to the voting rights of the homeless, but I think you're mistaken when you say: "homeless people can't vote in the uk" and "they have a de jure right but de facto they have no provision to".

This is nonsense. It's a myth. It *used* to be true, but it isn't anymore. Up until the year 2000 homeless people could not register to vote because the law required you to give your current address. Under the Representation of the People Act (2000), which came into force in 2001, you no longer need to be able to give a fixed address to be able to vote in UK elections. If you are of no fixed address (if, for example, you're homeless) you simply contact the local authority and make a "declaration of local connection" which is for the purpose of establishing which constituency you can vote in.

A valid "local connection" can be anything from a previous address in that constituency, to a day centre, homeless shelter, etc located in that constituency and where you spend a reasonable amount of your time.