@HeavenlyPossum You're oversimplifying a lot by lumping all non-modern-democratic ideas into the same basket.

There is a distinction between the democracy of the landed gentry, with all of its flaws and inequities, and out and out oligarchy.

And it's right to point out that their acceptance of slavery and their exploitative attitude towards 'the mob' is in contradiction of their stated ideals.

The US founding fathers were hypocrites, not oligarchs (also worshipping them is weird, America).

@BoysenberryCider

If “landed and slave owning elites who monopolized political and economic power for themselves as a class” don’t constitute an oligarchy, I don’t know what would.

Aristocrats taking turns ruling over a subject population is not “democracy of the landed gentry” because it is not democracy at all.

@HeavenlyPossum Your definition of 'democracy' is unhistorically narrow, and 'aristocrat' too wide. Democracy is a system, not a synonym for 'equal, righteous goverment'.

'Demos' + 'kratia' = rule by the people. 'The people' meant 'our kind of people', and excluded many. The franchise has since expanded, which is good.

'Oligos' + 'arkia' = rule by the few, fossilised concentration of power in the hands of a group.

There can be overlap, but you're bending the words to make your point.

@BoysenberryCider

No, I am using these words carefully and precisely. The concept of “rule by the people” is incompatible with “rule by some of the people.”

And casting periodic ballots for aristocrats competing in a popularity contest can, in no way, be said to constitute *rule* by the community of ballot casters, regardless of how expansive the franchise is.

@ahltorp @BoysenberryCider

Do you really imagine that periodically casting ballots for elites competing to rule you for various periods of time meaningfully constitutes democracy, in the sense of “people ruling themselves”?

I am also unaware of any polity that permits everyone living within its borders to vote in elections in that polity.

@HeavenlyPossum @BoysenberryCider If only members of the “elites” are possible to vote for, then that is a very valid criticism. But it’s unhelpful if even one person not being able to vote is disqualifying all other efforts to make democracy happen.

In Swedish local elections “everyone” is eventually able to vote. The reason for the quotes is that you might get thrown out before that or become undocumented. But it is still not everyone (because of the caveats above, and because it takes time).

@BoysenberryCider @ahltorp

I have a strong hunch that not everyone can vote in Swedish local elections. Children? Non-citizens?

But again: being able to periodically cast a vote for someone else to make decisions for you does not constitute “people ruling themselves,” any more than US or Roman or Venetian aristocrats are or were “democratic” because some of them held office through elections.

The Holy Roman Emperor was an elected position. We would not consider the Holy Roman Empire a democracy, even though it held periodic elections, and this would not have changed through a gradual expansion of the number of prince-electors.

@HeavenlyPossum @ahltorp here you're taking issue with representative democracy, as opposed to direct democracy, at least using conventional terminology.

I'm not the biggest fan of every aspect of representative democracy, especially since a lot of those systems are getting pretty rusty, with two party politics and abuse of electorate boundaries being common problems.

What would you suggest as an alternative?