Iranian Revolutionary Guard behind kidnapping of 5 Britons

[citizen k]

You are completely wrong there.

Limited democracy is not democracy at all. It is a stalling tactic used by dictators to stay in power by appeasing the blood thirst of the masses.

The 1990 ed Twilight 2000 back cover blurb disagrees with you. See war of 1812, fought by democracies.

Great Britain was a democracy in 1812?

[The Brain]

You are completely wrong there.

Limited democracy is not democracy at all. It is a stalling tactic used by dictators to stay in power by appeasing the blood thirst of the masses.

The 1990 ed Twilight 2000 back cover blurb disagrees with you. See war of 1812, fought by democracies.

Great Britain was a democracy in 1812?

Why do you think I still remember the statement?

[garbon]

As the limit approaches zero...

[Viking]

You are completely wrong there.

Limited democracy is not democracy at all. It is a stalling tactic used by dictators to stay in power by appeasing the blood thirst of the masses.

The 1990 ed Twilight 2000 back cover blurb disagrees with you. See war of 1812, fought by democracies.

Neither of them had a McDonalds

[Richard Hakluyt]

The franchise in the USA back in 1812 was also too limited for it to count as a democracy.

[The Brain]

The franchise in the USA back in 1812 was also too limited for it to count as a democracy.

[CountDeMoney]

The franchise in the USA back in 1812 was also too limited for it to count as a democracy.

Nonsense.  Anybody who needed the vote had it.

[grumbler]

The franchise in the USA back in 1812 was also too limited for it to count as a democracy.

Ah, someone who has the answer!  I have been trying to find the percentage of adult males in the US who had the vote prior to the 1824 election (when I know that universal male suffrage was the rule).  I know that Vermont, New Jersey, Maryland, and South Carolina had universal male suffrage by 1812, but not the limits in the other states, or how many people that affected.  Since you know that in 1812 it as "too limited to count as a democracy," you must know the limits (at least loosely).  What were they?  Serious question.

[ulmont]

I have been trying to find the percentage of adult males in the US who had the vote prior to the 1824 election (when I know that universal male suffrage was the rule).

Can you really count that suffrage as "universal" prior to 1870?

[Queequeg]

I have been trying to find the percentage of adult males in the US who had the vote prior to the 1824 election (when I know that universal male suffrage was the rule).

Can you really count that suffrage as "universal" prior to 1870?

After we give up on Reconstruction, I'm still not totally sure that it counts.

[grumbler]

I have been trying to find the percentage of adult males in the US who had the vote prior to the 1824 election (when I know that universal male suffrage was the rule).

Can you really count that suffrage as "universal" prior to 1870?

Obviously, suffrage is never "universal."  Hell, American Indians didn't all have suffrage until 1939, and some people of Asian extraction didn't get it until 1952.

But those were citizenship issues (as was the lack of suffrage by free "black" men in some states).  All male citizens had suffrage by 1824, I think.

[ulmont]

All male citizens had suffrage by 1824, I think.

According to this article, several states excluded "paupers" in that time period.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1228746

[grumbler]

All male citizens had suffrage by 1824, I think.

According to this article, several states excluded "paupers" in that time period.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1228746

Thanks.  Not sure that this invalidates "democracy," but it corrects my own knowledge on the matter.

We still are no closer to the percentage of US male citizens excluded from the vote in 1812, though.  In Britain, adult male suffrage before the 1832 Reform Act was about 8%, as I recall.

[Richard Hakluyt]

The franchise in the USA back in 1812 was also too limited for it to count as a democracy.

Ah, someone who has the answer!  I have been trying to find the percentage of adult males in the US who had the vote prior to the 1824 election (when I know that universal male suffrage was the rule).  I know that Vermont, New Jersey, Maryland, and South Carolina had universal male suffrage by 1812, but not the limits in the other states, or how many people that affected.  Since you know that in 1812 it as "too limited to count as a democracy," you must know the limits (at least loosely).  What were they?  Serious question.

I'm afraid not 

I was going simply by the restriction of the franchise to white male voters. The exclusion of women and (nearly all) black people tipped it for me. I'm vaguely aware of the other restrictions that have been mentioned but have no real knowledge of the details.

I'm interested in your statements that : "Obviously, suffrage is never "universal."  Hell, American Indians didn't all have suffrage until 1939, and some people of Asian extraction didn't get it until 1952.
But those were citizenship issues (as was the lack of suffrage by free "black" men in some states).  All male citizens had suffrage by 1824, I think."

I think that if we apply that to Sparta back in 500BC then they were just as much a democracy as the USA........after all, all the male citizens of Sparta had the vote.

Which leads one to the question, how wide does the suffrage have to be for a polity to count as a democracy?

[Richard Hakluyt]

Incidentally the British 1832 Reform Act actually took the vote away from many people. Prior to the act there were some boroughs where all hearth-holders were allowed to vote, and all rural freeholders in the county constituencies with land in excess of 40 shillings in value (a large sum 1000 years ago but not so much by 1832).