The meaning of democracy

What is a true democracy?
Is it a system of government where each person has equal representation within the government?
Very few countries have ever fallen under this category strictly speaking, so, what do we mean by "true democracy"?

American democracy is a work in progress. Number One Rule: Define the rights of the minority in your Constitution.
Eldred

jake, I certainly wonder about that at times? Are we becoming more or less of a democracy? To begin with the slavery in our early history shows that we began with something less than democracy? As the Rights to vote was extend only to those who owned property (material wealth) was the basic for this right (EXCLUDING WOMEN, even though they could own property).
Decius, the pior threads on government never produced the idea that the primary purpose of our government system was to serve the people. As put forth in our constitution, bill of rights, etc. we tend see as being democratic but does democracy by itself imply these rights?
Democracy doesn't mean that separation of powers such as we have are necessary to be a democracy. One of the reasons I wonder about other nations' form of democracy. Does Canada use similar form?

I agree with what you say Decius. And I do hope America will severely limit campaign advertisement and the need for the endorsement of corporations.
However, I wouldn't go so far as to say the top 10% dominate politics. The people still hold the vote.

"Simply have specific tv shows/debates showing the different candidates so that they are all represented equally, and moreso based on their performance in person than in a commercial."
Absolutely.

" To begin with the slavery in our early history shows that we began with something less than democracy?"
That depends on your definition of a man. Back then it was far more ambiguous then it is today, and there were people who simply believed wrongfully that blacks were little more then animals.
So long as all the beings within your nation that you believe are men influence politics then you are a democracy (if an *incorrect* democracy).

Other forms of democracy? I don't know about Canada. But in France the main differences I know of are :
- a presidential candidate does not "win" a state's votes. Each person has 1 vote the person with the most wins.
- there are 2 rounds to the presidential elections, the 2 candidates with the most votes of the first round participate in the second. It makes the odds of an extremist party of having a president virtually null.
- there is no minority region/state protecting body like the US's Senate.

Thank you for your response Teen, but I would point out that if the US Pacific coast did drop off into the ocean then the resulting electorial votes could result in the people in the western states not even having to vote, the election would have been decided with the closing of the eastern polls. Oh, well.
But I would like to ask about France governmental organization,like the comments in another string by a Canadian about their medical system (deem by some American as pinko socialist)?
In recent history of this nation has been toward 'government supplying the needs of the people is contrary to free-enterprise. We are seeing an effort toward minimal support from government. Medical, transportation, telephone, etc has been transfered to private sector, hmm . . may be we should hire out military and police functions as well? This would certainly lower budget deficencies by lowering our cost.

Oh my God I lost a massive post. K I'm really pissed so I'll keep it brief.
A country's economic policies whether free-market competitive or centralized welfare state do not affect whether or not it is democratic.

In the short run, socialist policies tend to be relieving to those in need or incredibly irritating overkill and in the long run tend to be counter-productive, uneconomic and lower the wealth of the people. I'm being very general here, and that is only my personal belief on most socialist policies. Gov controlled medicals is a notable exception.

Ya I know what you mean, but if we form (empower) the government to serve the people then we would need to define what serves should be provided?
In our modern society, local government supplies the needs of the residents by suppling water, sewer, electric and natural gas (cities) which is probably a good thing otherwise pollution would be far worse than it is now. Even though these are provided for in highly populated urban areas, private utilities (gas), water coexist. Generally rural areas must provide these services for themselves. So why if we pay taxes and are billed for these services to individual (corporate) when the government is as much a corporation as individual enterprise? Generally the system works that cost is extended to the consumers (those served by), I guess you could say I feel that a relative few big business making large profits to serve the needs of the people doesn't fulfill governments contractual agreement with the people in a democracy, anymore than it does in any other form of government. This seems to lead the way into cruption of government by the self serving at all levels of government.

quote:

---

In the short run, socialist policies tend to be counter-productive, uneconomic and lower the wealth of the people.

---

Well on at least one point I would tend to disagree. I don't see spreading wealth among the people as opposed to an (corporate) individual as lowering the wealth. Granted the present system doesn't work well but these problems arise to an extent because of the way they were formed.

"Well on at least one point I would tend to disagree. I don't see spreading wealth among the people as opposed to an (corporate) individual as lowering the wealth."
In the long run, it lowers the wealth of the people. Look at France, they pay the jobless far more then the US, and so people will often not try hard to find a job or do get black market jobs (this sounds big, but it can be as simple as undeclared masonry or cleaning lady) so as to get payed by the gov AND for their jobs. This example in the long run increases unemployment and is unfair in my personal opinion.

However, not all policies are bad, and I'lll stress that I do agree with medical payments completely by the gov so long as it is not the patient's fault.

OK I can acccept that but on the other hand look at the US in comparison. We have social security !
Not the citizens worked hard to earn a living from this local, state and federal income tax is deducted. On top of this S.S. is deducted according to the amount they are paid. Which would have been good if we maintained a natural growth rate matching the growth in population but because we didn't we have inflated rate of growth. Higher wages form a cycle blouting the economy, now those deductions don't have nearly the buying power in today's economy so the blue collar worker in his youth & inexperience get seniority & advances their postion and wages but as they advance in years they top out. By the time they get to the age to retire and draw upon these benefits, they find that they barely can survive on them. Age increases health need and limits their moblity and activeness. So the government set the standards so you have elderly people working part time jobs (bag boy,etc.) in order to survive? We have young couples working two jobs (or more) in order to live from paycheck to paycheck.
The 50's, era of gas guzzling hot rods then compare to today's automobile performance, price then life of related vehicle, we see better performance but higher cost & shorter useful life. Peta used to talk of his generation as generation X, I called it the disposable generation.
Oh by the way we are somewhat out of this string & into another string in these topics. Just to mention the other string on economics . . .

Well in the hope of actually staying on topic for once , how do you think democracy should work in for example the EU?
Should it simply be 1 man = 1 vote?
Considering that the EU is composed of many different nations, of different sizes, is this a wise idea?
Or should it be more American? That is, that there should be power also held by an undemocratic senate?
This question also applies to Black African countries with no sense of nation (Somalia, Botswana)) or some European ones (ex-Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia).

quote:

---

how do you think democracy should work in for example the EU?

---

Ah . . . if each country has one vote then do they not form a governing body like the U.S. Senate, where each state has two senators?

quote:

---

This question also applies to Black African countries with no sense of nation (Somalia, Botswana)) or some European ones (ex-Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia).

---

In Native Amerian culture, what is called tribes is understood to them as nations. This is generally true historically in most of the world, the transition to our perception of nation as territory was secondary as boundries changed as population grew. Nationalism is a unifying trait giving a sense identity which has certain positve aspects but the negative aspects leads to some real nasty attributes. (War, etc)

"Ah . . . if each country has one vote then do they not form a governing body like the U.S. Senate, where each state has two senators?"
That's the current system. Which doesn't work well because ALL members need to agree to get something done. The system needs changing, ideally a democratic system would be best. But that would mean France, Britain and Germany would dominate EU politics.

"Nationalism is a unifying trait giving a sense identity which has certain positve aspects but the negative aspects leads to some real nasty attributes. (War, etc)"
Extreme forms of nationalism can lead to attrocious wars. But the lack of it has lead to numerous failures of democracy as well as the vast majority of wars in Black Africa. The tribal warfare in Africa seems to have a very medieval flavour to it.

A government by the people for the people. (very broad)

But we don't have that. We have a government by the Capitalist for the Capitalist. It has to change.

Nonesense citykid, YOU are the one voting. Granted money has a very large influence a bad thing by any measure, but its not as bad as you make out.
For Europe we need a government by the peopleS for the peopleS which is why I think its going to be messy

Teen, what I am saying that democracy is the right of the people to decide, in this case by voting. One person, one vote the senate is a counter-balance in our system, so no the senate is not a democratic institution in that sense. If EU were to take the popular vote of the representative in each nation which then was used to form the overall EU vote, then it would be purer form of democracracy. But as you stated

quote:

---

For Europe we need a government by the peopleS for the peopleS which is why I think its going to be messy

---

Which is one of the balance in our form of government, the Senate.