Turkey blocks use of Twitter after prime minister attacks social media site

Look, the military interventions are far from ideal, but if I had a choice between a country with a military that steps in lightly when my country's secular ideals are threatened, and a country ruled by a strict authoritarian religious monoparty that strives to weaken democratic establishments, I know which one I'd choose.

But the basic tenet of a functional democracy is that it is functional (duh). I have some doubts if the swiss model will stay both functional and democratic, in the mid-term future.

The referendum about quotas for EU citizens has shown a few disturbing tendencies: It is now possible for a referendum to issue a constitutional crisis where the government does not see a way to implement the referendum without damaging the country.

And if I listen to swiss people, they are completely not in agreement over whom they want to oust. Somehow almost all EU citizens are employed, and they want to oust the unemployed like they could even before the referendum.

But if the government doesn't oust anyone, it can't implement the referendum.

Another danger is that there have been increasingly xenophobic referendums. If this escalation maintains, democratic freedoms will suffer. If anything, referendums do have this tendency of distorting "public opinion" toward the emotional and down right hateful side.

Lawrence Lessig talks about it here: http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_t...

One problem is that referendums have to follow a very detailed process to actually mean something. As can be seen in the Crimea. Putin essentially asked down the barrel of a tank: "Do you want to join?" Of course he was somewhat more subtle, but in essence...

In Switzerland severely different conditions prevail. It's a small country with around 10 million inhabitants, quite a few of that non-voters. Try doing a referendum every couple of months with dozens of millions of voters! The potential for abuse abounds!

And then, don't think that referendums will be about important or at least relatively sane issues. No, no, most moderate parties are content with the way parlemantary democracy works. The referendums will be issued by the most right-wing and most left-wing parties there are, with each crack-pot idea becoming at least marginally possible for a time. In Switzerland there is the "concording principle", which tries to remedy some of that uncertainty and chaos. Try that in France, Germany or Italy...

If you define democracy as something where every citizen can participate equally you can easily come to the conclusion that all these countries in fact are not democracies because clearly these governments often do things that the population does not want. You can verify this easily by looking at some poll results. As soon as there are lobbyists who influence the elected representatives, there is an inequality in the power between different interest groups. This leads to less democratic societies. In our current societies not every citizen can participate equally, therefore these are not democracies. Compare it to a mathematical definition of equality... You cannot say 0.9 is equal to 1 just because it is almost equal. In a direct democracy everyone has almost equal possibilities to participate... In a representative democracy this "almost" get's a little weaker. In a representative democracy with powerful lobbyist groups this "almost" becomes even more weak so that you cannot even call it equal anymore.

So I completely agree when people look at current democracies from an idealistic point of view and say that they are not really democracies. My personal opinion is that a much more ideal democratic society is actually possible with the advances in IT. Direct democratic participation could be possible using end-to-end auditable voting systems with cryptographic methods.

I hate this defeatist, cynical bullshit about "there are no democracies" - it only plays into the hands of those who want people to sit down, shut up and not get involved.

If a large chunk of a country (like Crimea) can leave the country based purely on a vote then I'd say we do have democracy in Ukraine.

(in case I sound like I'd prefer an elitist administration instead, I should say that I wouldn't have it any other way. least worst, and all that.)

What is the alternative? Yes we are NOT all equal. Some of us are more rational and intelligent than others. But how would you go about determining one's intellectual and moral worthiness? (Education? IQ?) And who gets to decide the criteria for superiority?

If you were as smart as you think you are...you would have considered these issues before making such a shockingly elitist statement.

YES - that's exactly what should happen. Your "political degree" gives you no right to decide for other people what's good for them. If I like my leaders to have nice eyes, then I am entitled to my vote just as you are entitled to yours based on your "political degree" nonsense that I don't care about. You don't get to decide if having nice eyes is important or not. If enough people think it's important - then it is important by definition.

I have a Political Science degree, and I see no reason why this would be a problem. Could you clarify why you think this should not be the case?