Talk:Direct democracy
|
|
| Contents |
Direct democracy about voting?
Is direct democracy necessarily about voting? -- Sam
- I think it's necessarily about consensus, which involves an amalgamation of individual opinions. "Voting" may be a simplistic way of summarizing how this process occurs (and getting too deep into the article here on voting probably overcomplicates the process with regard to some direct democracies) but I think the wording here is pretty good. Probably what would be best here is a further explanation of the context of voting, specifically as regards a direct democracy, rather than adding caveats to the "voting system" article as I first thought.
- In some places normally thought of as practicing direct democracy, such as Vermont, voting is the only means by which decisions are made. On Town Meeting Day (or more frequently on the night before), citizens listen to and question their elected officials, but decisions of any import may only be made by secret ballot subsequent to a published warning made available to all registered voters (which in most places takes place of Town Meeting Day itself). The feature which makes Vermont an icon for direct democracy is not the meeting itself, but rather, the relative weakness of the representative governing boards (selectboards or city councils) which requires most important decisions to be put to plebiscite. (All Vermont municipalities and municipal union districts, except the city of South Burlington, are required by their charters to submit their budgets to the citizens annually. Since I left the state, I have heard that some communities attempted to enact their own South Burlington-style rules, but these charter changes have to the best of my knowledge always been turned down by the state legislature.) 18.24.0.120 07:54, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Why was this article moved?
Well, more importantly, why has this been moved to democracy? I think it definately should have its own article. -- Sam
Documenting historical successes and failures
At some point, I think it would be useful to add information about the historical successes and failures of direct democratic methods. Also, a more complete exploration of how its failures can be ameliorated would be interesting. -- Stevietheman 17:47, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
Major mods, three pillars
I have just made substantial modifications to this page. I found no reference to the three pillars of direct democracy so I included them. I also think that we should make a clear distinction between DD applied to the leglislature and to the executive powers. It may be the case here that the modern meaning of DD has deviated considerably from the traditional meaning in which case the article should make this clear. If anyone wants to look into historical attempts at DD then the beggining of the russian revolution 'All power to the soviets' is an example. Of course Lenin visciously crushed the soviets when he came to power. Also the french general strike of 1968 could be thought of as an attempt at direct democracy. Barnaby dawson 14:27, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Direct Democracy tribe
I didn't think this posting was worthy enough to go on the page in "External links," but I recently started a Direct Democracy tribe (http://directdemocracy.tribe.net) at Tribe.net. Tribe.net is a social networking site like Friendster, but it has much greater functionality and better performance. -- Stevietheman 02:31, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Major content expansion needs formatting
Much of the new material by Sneitzke is probably good stuff, but it doesn't fit in well in terms of standard Wikipedia formatting. Hopefully, Sneitzke or somebody will get to work on reformatting the material ASAP before somebody decides to do a revert based on poor formatting. Also, it would be good if Sneitzke explains all his changes here. The usual Wikipedia etiquette is to explain major changes in the discussion. -- Stevietheman 18:18, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I'm also concerned that the article is too long now. Needs to be edited down. -- Stevietheman 18:20, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Major Revision
Obviously, I'll have to disagree with the notions that the material is "probably good stuff", and that "it is too long now". Direct democracy has a lot of enemies. Many of those write silly little oversimplifications like there being 3 "pillars" of DD -- and that DD hasn't been used much since Athens. Especially now, when we're facing the most criminal period of representative government in our history, our citizens need sources of sufficient information on DD -- so that they can devise responsible solutions. As for explaining all of my changes, if you can read at 8th grade level or above, the changes explain themselves. I was very careful to integrate points from the last version that had sufficient merit -- there were many of them. As far as formatting goes, I reviewed many Wikipedia pages before submitting my edit and was pleased to see a very wide variety of formatting. I've been back to the major revision 8 times, not only to correct my first-timer errors, but to format the material so that it is attractive and easy to read. Having earned journeymen ratings as printer, pressman, and typsetter before I was 21 -- and having had four decades to really settle on what looks good in formatting -- I've no end of confidence that if my formatting is so unacceptable as to cause a revert, then here comes a revert war.
- There are still many formatting issues left in the text. I trust that you will not revert any appropriate editing work on this material. Further, the egotism you express here only hurts you and your additions, not helps them. People will assume you have an axe to grind and will believe that your content is POV even if it's not. You may want to get off your high horse and realize that this is an encyclopedia, and the content must be NPOV and formatted well. You won't be able to fight these aspects. -- Stevietheman 18:55, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I just corrected a few of the formatting issues. I'm happy you earned the multiple awards for editing, but it would helpful if you admitted that the article needed major cleanup after basically rewriting it. Ego doesn't help your case. -- Stevietheman 19:14, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Further, I'm going to have to insist that you explain your changes fully and make an attempt to reduce the material. -- Stevietheman 18:57, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- My egotism? And you insist? Any questions you have on any of the material will be carefully discussed, as I do all day, every day on an international email discussion list that is part of my DDL website. : Sneitzke 19:12, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Well, I know you know your subject. However, someone else may come in here and be shocked at the changes, and revert them. Therefore, it would help _you_ if you explained them. It's clear you haven't been involved in the Wikipedia until recently, so drop the ego and explain your material. -- Stevietheman 19:16, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Once more, the marerial is written in a sufficiently self-explatory clearness that it explains itself. If you have reasonable questions on specific points, we can have a discussion. But there will be no massive paraphrasing of what I've already said clearly. : Sneitzke 19:24, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The bottom line for me is if you don't clean up and reduce the article, I or somebody else will in the near future. And you can't stop others here from changing or rearranging your material. You don't own the material in this article. In fact, you just gave it up to the public domain, and others can change it _at will_.
- Also note that revert wars often end up with an article being locked in favor of the majority's views. -- Stevietheman 19:30, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- You don't have any bottom line with me. Do your worst. When the revert war heats up sufficiently to get a democratic vote on whose version should be locked in, we will have arrived at where I live. Let the people decide. : Sneitzke
- I'm sorry that you're treating this as some kind of war or something. That's generally viewed as an unwelcome approach here. You don't know everything about the subject of direct democracy. There are many others who are knowledgeable, and they have a right to alter the material you just added. If you don't accept this premise, you're going to experience many problems in the Wikipedia. -- Stevietheman 19:45, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Also, I need to remark that when I said your material was "probably good stuff", that was meant as a compliment. It's sad you couldn't see that.It's becoming increasingly apparent from your responses here in discussion that the main purpose for your contributions is to start an edit war rather than contribute useful material. -- Stevietheman 19:50, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Restored original version
I restored the original article. After reviewing new text, it references the new author's website (ddleague) many times, the text is overly verbose, and there's too much POV. I find all of these elements, esp. the repeated advertising of Sneitzke's website to be in violation of Wikipedia rules. It just smells badly.
I certainly think that the article can be expanded, but not like this. What was done to the article recently was wrong, and I will oppose any attempts to bring it back in the same form.
If Sneitzke wants to reintroduce some of his content, he will need to be incremental and responsible in doing so. This is an _encyclopedia, not Sneitzke's soapbox. -- Stevietheman 06:37, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Revert To Revision
I find Stevietheman's treatment of both me and my material childish in the extreme. His article on DD is similarly childish, especially in its oversimplified "3 pillars" metaphor. I've shortened the revision to bring it under the prescribed 32 KB, and still need to take out some more, but my systematic presentation of material is sound. Mentions of my web site, which has been dedicated to international DD since its inception in March 1998, were not attempts to advertise the site, they were simply documenting the source of logic and reasoning reported in the revision, in accord with Wikipedia rules. I've now removed most of those mentions.
My presentation of DD material is not dependent on Stevietheman's childish demands. I'll take this as far as necessary to get either an authoritative ruling or a democratic vote between the two articles. Just now, the American people need information that can point them to solutions, not Stevietheman's uninformed ego trip. This is an encyclopedia, not Stevietheman's private toybox.
- Sneitzke 08:44, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The original article wasn't _my_ article. Your self-advertising links are wholly inappropriate and break Wikipedia rules. -- Stevietheman 14:37, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
New version of article archived here
The article having been recently completely rewritten and there having been some discussion as to the value of these changes the new version is archived here: talk:Direct democracy/New version.
I suggest that efforts are made to integrate as much material from this new version as possible. I shall help out in doing this. I dropped a note on user talk:Sneitzke's talk page explaining why I've done this in more detail. Barnaby dawson 09:21, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I have now integrated sections on american direct democracy, digital direct democracy and the traditional definition of direct democracy. These are substantial portions of text (1/4 to a 1/3 of the archived text). More work needs doing on the history section. I think it is the pros and cons section that was causing the accusations of POV. The pros and cons is was re-written entirely from a pro DD stance. I agree with much that it says but it is not appropriate for encylopedia text. I suggest moving it to a sub page of user:Sneitzke's. Or maybe we can get in some critics of DD to help us rework it for inclusion (I'm unsure about attempting this myself as I am pro DD and therefore not the best for this job (although I would ensure that relevent pro points were not deleted)).
The history section has also been dealt with. I put the history of direct democracy in the US on a separate page refferenced to in the text. I think the other section about direct democracy in the US might be best moved to another page as well. Barnaby dawson 10:43, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Barnaby, I generally agree with your approach. It's responsible and reflects a genuine caring for the article. This article and the spun-off history article still require a good deal of reformatting, which I will attempt shortly.
- By the way, if Sneitzke's accusations about me were true, I'd be reverting your responsible changes too. But of course I'm not. :) -- Stevietheman 14:41, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I restored the new References section. I'll leave it up to others to decide which references should stay and which should not. But it looks like a good many of them are useful. -- Stevietheman 15:47, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Local direct democracy in the US
Re: "In the United States, only single majorities are required (simple majority of those voting) to approve any of the direct democracy petition components."
Various localities around the US also provide for initiatives, and in specific classes of these initiatives (like those for raising taxes), there is a supermajority requirement.
I bring this up only for us to figure out where and how to integrate this material, if it should be integrated. -- Stevietheman 04:04, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I went ahead and added this material. -- Stevietheman 14:02, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Electronic direct democracy
I'm going to start up a new wikipage describing electronic direct democracy. I've tried to ensure that there isn't already a page up about this subject (with perhaps a similar name) but haven't found anything. The closest seems to be internet democracy but that isn't a term describing a system but rather a collection of technocratic meens to enhance decision making much like e-democracy. Doing a google search on Electronic direct democracy (in quotes) gives 290 results one of which is an article in the economist so I think that gives it validity as the a name for the concept. Barnaby dawson 10:25, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- How about expanding the e-democracy article with this? What else is electronic direct democracy but a collection of technocratic means to enhance direct democracy, which is direct public policy decision-making by the public? In fact, many people I know who speak of e-democracy uses it as a synonym for making democracy "more direct". With these terms so intertwined, a new article doesn't make much sense to me. On top of that, it may not survive a VfD, as Google hits alone aren't the arbiter of noteworthiness. -- Stevietheman 14:52, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I think that the concept of enhancing direct democracy using technocratic means deserves its own page. The concept is in use by many groups of direct democracy advocates around the world (although not necessarily with the name EDD) with a meaning seperable from that given in e-democracy. It is IMHO the main reason for the resurgence of the concept of direct democracy in the political sphere. However, I am concerned that the name that I've given to it isn't the most appropriate one. I chose electronic direct democracy because thats the name used on direct democracy forum. I did the google search to get some confidence that the name is used outside of that sphere. I shall work on this page but I may also copy some material across to e-democracy. I think that the problem we have here may be that DD advocates create concepts that are then used by the media and government in a watered down version. Hence e-democracy is sometimes used to mean just discussion forums or providing government services electronically. But we should represent the concept properly and in order to do so we must give some name for it. I have encountered digital-democracy, electronic democracy, electronic direct democracy and e-democracy. But it seemed that electronic direct democracy was less watered down in its usage. What do you think? Do you agree that this concept needs representing? What do you think is the best name for it? Perhaps you think it should be a subsection in e-democracy or maybe on direct democracy? Barnaby dawson 09:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I believe EDD deserves representation within the E-democracy article. There are many instances of articles within the Wikipedia where several concepts are combined into one article. For instance, the concept "semi-direct democracy" is folded into direct democracy. I don't see a problem with doing this. At any rate, EDD to me sounds like too recent a coinage (that is, non-notable) to deserve its own article. -- Stevietheman 12:11, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Ok this seems reasonable. I have copied the text across from electronic direct democracy to E-democracy and I shall request deletion of electronic direct democracy. Barnaby dawson 16:41, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Looks good. Thanks. I would recommend a redirect from Electronic direct democracy to E-democracy instead of outright deleting the article. -- Stevietheman 17:14, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Citizen assemblies
There was some badly phrased and ill written material added recently to the introduction. I cleaned it up a bit and removed the reference to a "fourth pillar" of citizen assemblies. Anyone think that the citizen assemblies should be considered a fourth pillar? Barnaby dawson 03:48, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Citizen involvement and activism
Some effort should be made to broaden the definition of "direct democracy" to include efforts that give citizens the ability to participate directly (or more directly than before) in the legislative, public policy and regulation creation process. Some of this will naturally bleed into the e-democracy topic, but there's nothing wrong with some overlap here. --Stevietheman 06:33, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)