At 11:27 PM 3/1/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [well] I define democracy generally as a characteristic of organizations, which deals with the problem of "Is the U.S. a democracy?" Or, for that matter, "Was Athens a democracy?" It is simpler to answer the last question....
Athens was a democracy for those who were recognized as citizens and who were able to participate in decision-making. It was not a democracy for the others. That is, there was an oligarchy which generally functioned, within itself, as a democracy. Democratic organizations can be oppressors of others. Democracy is also not an absolute characteristic, it seems that it is generally a relative one. That is one organization may be more democratic than another, and yet we might describe both of them as democracies, or both of them as not democracies. Compared to what? It is clear to me that any organization where all the members consent to the organizational process is a democracy with respect to those members. But it might be a dictatorship with respect to those who do not consent (and who, by this definition, are not members). The U.S. deprives felons of the right to vote. Quite clearly, it is not a democracy with respect to them. And this restriction, if continued past the time of imprisonment or other legal incapacity, has definite political effects. Indeed, many dictatorships simply define anyone who opposes the government as a criminal. The rule that felons don't have voting rights seems quite arbitrary and dangerous. What is the fear? That felons will vote to make theft or murder illegal? For this to happen, would they not have to be able to sway the majority? And I've worked closely with felons, as a prison chaplain. They would not vote to make theft or murder legal, not as a group. Each of them might make this or that exception, and many or even most of them recognize that what they did was wrong. ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
