Athenian democracy developed in the Greek city-state of Athens, comprising the central city-state of Athens and the surrounding territory of Attica, around 508 BC. Athens was one of the first known democracies. Other Greek cities set up democracies, and even though most followed an Athenian model, none were as powerful, stable, or as well-documented as that of Athens. It remains a unique and intriguing experiment in direct democracy where the people do not elect representatives to vote on their behalf but vote on legislation and executive bills in their own right. Participation was by no means open, but the in-group of participants was constituted with no reference to economic class and they participated on a scale that was truly phenomenal. The public opinion of voters was remarkably influenced by the political satire performed by the comic poets at the theatres.
This is Ancient Athenian Democracy and lets say if we changed that only certain people could vote could this type of democracy be better?
lets say if we changed that only certain people could vote could this type of democracy be better?
I'm a man who supports full civil liberties, meaning everyone should have the right to vote. A direct democracy, which is what this Athenian democracy is defined, complimenting lesser civil liberties means only a percentage of the population get their say, not to mention the direct democracy being the result of what "everyone's" views are. You take out a percentage of the population by limiting the voting rights of certain people, and the results will not be directly reflected by the voters.
This is Ancient Athenian Democracy and lets say if we changed that only certain people could vote could this type of democracy be better?
No, it would never be better. Maybe if the only people that would vote are smart people, maybe it would. But it closes down on liberty a lot. And a country that suppresses liberty can never last.
I think it could be better if everyone that could vote was active in politics. How many ignorant voters are there now that don't research on who they are voting for? What would be best is probably taking a test about your knowledge of what is going on in politics and then you could vote. But that is just me.
What would be best is probably taking a test about your knowledge of what is going on in politics and then you could vote.
It would cost to much and you would be denying some individuals the right to vote.
Honestly one of the problems with today's government is that our representatives are much to sensitive to the will of their constituents, well the ones that voted for them at least. Sometimes we do not what's best for us *gasp* and it would be better for legislatures to go against public opinion but unfortunatly the public is much to short sited and the politics to concerned with their careers to do that. This also means that if an individual is voted in by a very low margin the voters who voted against him are given absolutely no say or any power.
My complaint was with the representatives not the citizens, and it would be easier to invest money on education them in school than administering tests to check proficiency.
Yes, but if you have an education plan to where you don't have to work for it, like now, people won't care. Maybe some, but then the same thing would happen like it is now.
In my opinion it would develop a society of close minded people that stagnates due to the belief that the few are superior and the majority are inferior.
