.imported americanhistoryb archive arevoir democracia democracy direct direct+democracy direct_democracy directdemocracy edemocracy government international law participativa participatorydemocracy politics progetti.libertatia project3 referendums relations society swiss switzerland tecnodemo

My tags:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references (ideally, using inline citations). Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2009)

This article is part of the Politics series

✗ Democracy ✗

History · Varieties List of types

Anticipatory Athenian Christian Consensus Constitutional Deliberative Demarchy Direct Grassroots Illiberal Islamic Liberal Messianic Non-partisan Participatory Religious Representative Representative direct Republican Social Sociocracy Soviet Totalitarian

Politics portal

v • d • e

This article is part of the Politics series

Forms of government

List of forms of government

Anarchy Aristocracy Authoritarianism Autocracy Communist state Confederation Corporatocracy Consociational state Demarchy Democracy Direct Representative Consensus Despotism Dictatorship Military Ethnocracy Exilarchy Federation Feudalism Military junta Kleptocracy Kratocracy Kritocracy Kritarchy Logocracy Meritocracy Geniocracy Minarchism/Night Watchman Monarchy Absolute Constitutional Diarchy/Co-Kingship Noocracy Ochlocracy/Mobocracy Oligarchy Panarchism Plutocracy Puppet state Republic Crowned Capitalist Constitutional Federal Parliamentary Federal Socialist state Sociocracy Technocracy Cyberocracy Netocracy Theocracy Theodemocracy Timocracy Totalitarianism Tribal Chiefdom

Politics portal

v • d • e

Direct democracy, classically termed pure democracy,^[1] comprises a form of democracy and theory of civics wherein sovereignty is lodged in the assembly of all citizens who choose to participate. Depending on the particular system, this assembly might pass executive motions, make laws, elect and dismiss officials and conduct trials.

Direct democracy stands in contrast to representative democracy, where sovereignty is exercised by a subset of the people, usually on the basis of election. Deliberative democracy incorporates elements of both direct democracy and representative democracy.^[2]

Many countries that are representative democracies allow for three forms of political action that provide limited direct democracy: initiative, referendum and recall. Referendums can include the ability to hold a binding referendum on whether a given law should be scrapped. This effectively grants the populace a veto on government legislation. Recalls gives the people the right to remove from office elected officials before the end of their term.

Contents 1 History 2 Discussion 3 Comparison with representative democracy 4 Examples 4.1 Ancient Athens 4.2 Switzerland 4.3 United States 4.4 Venezuela 5 Contemporary movements 6 Direct democracy in school 7 See also 8 Notes 9 References 10 External links 10.1 Canada 10.2 General 10.3 Germany 10.4 Iceland 10.5 Israel 10.6 Italy 10.7 New Zealand 10.8 Poland 10.9 Spain 10.10 Sweden 10.11 United States

[edit] History

This article's citation style may be unclear. The references used may be clearer with a different or consistent style of citation, footnoting, or external linking. (January 2008)

The first recorded democracy, which was also direct, was the Athenian democracy in the 5th century BC. The main bodies in the Athenian democracy were the assembly, composed by male citizens, the boule which was composed by 500 citizens chosen annually by lot), and the law courts composed by a massive number of juries chosen by lot, with no judges. Out of the male population of 30,000, several thousand citizens were politically active every year and many of them quite regularly for years on end. The Athenian democracy was not only direct in the sense that decisions were made by the assembled people, but also directest in the sense that the people through the assembly, boule and law courts controlled the entire political process and a large proportion of citizens were involved constantly in the public business.^[3] Modern democracies do not use institutions that resemble the Athenian system of rule, due to the problems arising when implementing such on the scale of modern societies.

Also relevant is the history of Roman republic beginning circa 449 BC (Cary, 1967). The ancient Roman Republic's "citizen lawmaking"—citizen formulation and passage of law, as well as citizen veto of legislature-made law—began about 449 BC and lasted the approximately four hundred years to the death of Julius Caesar in 44 BC. Many historians mark the end of the Republic on the passage of a law named the Lex Titia, 27 November 43 BC (Cary, 1967).

Modern-era citizen lawmaking began in the towns of Switzerland in the 13th century. In 1847, the Swiss added the "statute referendum" to their national constitution. They soon discovered that merely having the power to veto Parliament's laws was not enough. In 1891, they added the "constitutional amendment initiative". The Swiss political battles since 1891 have given the world a valuable experience base with the national-level constitutional amendment initiative (Kobach, 1993). Today, Switzerland is still an example of modern direct democracy, as it exhibits the first two pillars at both the local and federal levels. In the past 120 years more than 240 initiatives have been put to referendum. The populace has been conservative, approving only about 10% of the initiatives put before them; in addition, they have often opted for a version of the initiative rewritten by government. (See Direct democracy in Switzerland below.) Another example is the United States, where, despite being a federal republic where no direct democracy exists at the federal level, almost half the states (and many localities) provide for citizen-sponsored ballot initiatives (also called "ballot measures" or "ballot questions") and the vast majority of the states have either initiatives and/or referendums. (See Direct democracy in the United States below.)

Some of the issues surrounding the related notion of a direct democracy using the Internet and other communications technologies are dealt with in e-democracy. More concisely, the concept of open source governance applies principles of the free software movement to the governance of people, allowing the entire populace to participate in government directly, as much or as little as they please. This development strains the traditional concept of democracy, because it does not give equal representation to each person. Some implementations may even be considered democratically-inspired meritocracies, where contributors to the code of laws are given preference based on their ranking by other contributors.

[edit] Discussion

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources (ideally, using inline citations). Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2009)

This article needs reorganization to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. There is good information here, but it is poorly organized; editors are encouraged to be bold and make changes to the overall structure to improve this article.

Many political movements within representative democracies, seek to restore some measure of direct democracy or a more deliberative democracy, and to include consensus decision-making rather than simply majority rule. Such movements advocate more frequent public votes and referendums on issues, and less of the so-called "rule by politician". Collectively, these movements are referred to as advocating grassroots democracy or consensus democracy, to differentiate it from a simple direct democracy model. Another related movement is community politics which seeks to engage representatives with communities directly.

Some anarchists (usually social anarchists) have advocated forms of direct democracy as an alternative to the centralized state and capitalism; however, others (such as individualist anarchists) have criticized direct democracy and democracy in general for ignoring the rights of the minority, and instead have advocated a form of consensus decision-making. Libertarian Marxists, however, fully support direct democracy in the form of the proletarian republic and see majority rule and citizen participation as virtues.

[edit] Comparison with representative democracy

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (October 2008)

This section requires expansion.

Ideas regarding the desirability of direct democracy are usually in comparison to its widespread alternative, representative democracy. (Hans Köchler, 1995)

• Political parties. The formation of political parties is considered by some to be a "necessary evil" of representative democracy, where combined resources are often needed to get candidates elected. However, such parties mean that individual representatives must compromise their own values and those of the electorate, in order to fall in line with the party platform. At times, only a minor compromise is needed. At other times such a large compromise is demanded that a representative will resign or switch parties. In structural terms, the party system may be seen as a form of oligarchy. (Hans Köchler, 1995) Meanwhile, in direct democracy, political parties have virtually no effect, as people do not need to conform with popular opinions. In addition to party cohesion, representatives may also compromise in order to achieve other objectives, by passing combined legislation, where for example minimum wage measures are combined with tax relief. In order to satisfy one desire of the electorate, the representative may have to abandon a second principle. In direct democracy, each issue would be decided on its own merits, and so "special interests" would not be able to include unpopular measures in this way.

• Voter apathy. If voters have more influence on decisions, it is argued that they will take more interest in and participate more in deciding those issues.^[4]

• Scale. Direct democracy works on a small system. For example, the Athenian Democracy governed a city of, at its height, about 30,000 eligible voters (free adult male citizens). Town meetings, a form of local government once common in New England, have also worked well, often emphasizing consensus over majority rule. The use of direct democracy on a larger scale has historically been more difficult, however.^[5] Nevertheless, developments in technology such as the internet, user-friendly and secure software, and inexpensive, powerful personal computers have all inspired new hope in the practicality of large scale applications of direct democracy. Furthermore ideas such as council democracy and the Marxist concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat are if nothing else proposals to enact direct democracy in nation-states and beyond.

• Manipulation by timing and framing. If voters are to decide on an issue in a referendum, a day (or other period of time) must be set for the vote and the question must be framed, but since the date on which the question is set and different formulations of the same question evoke different responses, whoever sets the date of the vote and frames the question has the possibility of influencing the result of the vote.^[6] Manipulation is also present in pure democracy with a growing population. Original members of the society are able to instigate measures and systems that enable them to manipulate the thoughts of new members to the society. Proponents counter that a portion of time could be dedicated and mandatory as opposed to a per-issue referendum. In other words, each member of civil society could be required to participate in governing their society each week, day, or other period of time.

[edit] Examples

[edit] Ancient Athens

This section requires expansion.

[edit] Switzerland

In Switzerland, single majorities are sufficient at the town, city, and state (canton) level, but at the national level, "double majorities" are required on constitutional matters. The intent of the double majorities is simply to ensure any citizen-made law's legitimacy (Kobach, 1993).

Double majorities are, first, the approval by a majority of those voting, and, second, a majority of states in which a majority of those voting approve the ballot measure. A citizen-proposed law (i.e. initiative) cannot be passed in Switzerland at the national level if a majority of the people approve, but a majority of the states disapprove (Kobach, 1993). For referendums or proposition in general terms (like the principle of a general revision of the Constitution), the majority of those voting is enough (Swiss constitution, 2005).

In 1890, when the provisions for Swiss national citizen lawmaking were being debated by civil society and government, the Swiss copied the idea of double majorities from the United States Congress, in which House votes were to represent the people and Senate votes were to represent the states (Kobach, 1993). According to its supporters, this "legitimacy-rich" approach to national citizen lawmaking has been very successful. Kobach claims that Switzerland has had tandem successes both socially and economically which are matched by only a few other nations, and that the United States is not one of them. Kobach states at the end of his book, "Too often, observers deem Switzerland an oddity among political systems. It is more appropriate to regard it as a pioneer." Finally, the Swiss political system, including its direct democratic devices in a multi-level governance context, becomes increasingly interesting for scholars of EU integration (see Trechsel, 2005).

v • d • e Elections and referendums in Switzerland Parliamentary elections 1848 · 1851 · 1854 · 1857 · 1860 · 1863 · 1866 · 1869 · 1872 · 1875 · 1878 · 1881 · 1884 · 1887 · 1890 · 1893 · 1896 · 1899 · 1902 · 1905 · 1908 · 1911 · 1914 · 1917 · 1919 · 1922 · 1925 · 1928 · 1931 · 1935 · 1939 · 1943 · 1947 · 1951 · 1955 · 1959 · 1963 · 1967 · 1971 · 1975 · 1979 · 1983 · 1987 · 1991 · 1995 · 1999 · 2003 · 2007 Referendums 1959 · 1971 · 1985 · 1986 · 1998 (Sep, Nov) · 1999 (Feb, Apr, Jun) · 2000 (Mar, May, Sep, Nov) · 2001 (Mar, Jun) · 2002 (Mar, Jun, Nov) · 2003 · 2004 (Feb, May, Sep, Nov) · 2005 (Jun, Sep , Nov) · 2006 (May, Sep, Nov) · 2007 (Mar, Jun) · 2008 (Feb, Jun, Nov) · 2009 (Feb, May, Sep)

[edit] United States

Direct democracy was very much opposed by the framers of the United States Constitution and some signers of the Declaration of Independence. They saw a danger in majorities forcing their will on minorities. As a result, they advocated a representative democracy in the form of a constitutional republic over a direct democracy. For example, James Madison, in Federalist No. 10 advocates a constitutional republic over direct democracy precisely to protect the individual from the will of the majority. He says, "A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."^[7] John Witherspoon, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, said "Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state — it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage." Alexander Hamilton said, "That a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity..."..

Despite the framers' intentions in the beginning of the republic, ballot measures and their corresponding referendums have been widely used at the state and sub-state level. There is much state and federal case law, from the early 1900s to the 1990s, that protects the people's right to each of these direct democracy governance components (Magleby, 1984, and Zimmerman, 1999). The first United States Supreme Court ruling in favor of the citizen lawmaking was in Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118—in 1912 (Zimmerman, December 1999). President Theodore Roosevelt, in his "Charter of Democracy" speech to the 1912 Ohio constitutional convention, stated "I believe in the Initiative and Referendum, which should be used not to destroy representative government, but to correct it whenever it becomes misrepresentative."

In various states, referendums through which the people rule include:

• Referrals by the legislature to the people of "proposed constitutional amendments" (constitutionally used in 49 states, excepting only Delaware — Initiative & Referendum Institute, 2004).
• Referrals by the legislature to the people of "proposed statute laws" (constitutionally used in all 50 states — Initiative & Referendum Institute, 2004).
• Constitutional amendment initiative is the most powerful citizen-initiated, direct democracy governance component. It is a constitutionally-defined petition process of "proposed constitutional law," which, if successful, results in its provisions being written directly into the state's constitution. Since constitutional law cannot be altered by state legislatures, this direct democracy component gives the people an automatic superiority and sovereignty, over representative government (Magelby, 1984). It is utilized at the state level in eighteen states: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and South Dakota (Cronin, 1989). Among the eighteen states, there are three main types of the constitutional amendment initiative, with different degrees of involvement of the state legislature distinguishing between the types (Zimmerman, December 1999).
• Statute law initiative is a constitutionally-defined, citizen-initiated, petition process of "proposed statute law," which, if successful, results in law being written directly into the state's statutes. The statute initiative is used at the state level in twenty-one states: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming (Cronin, 1989). Note that, in Utah, there is no constitutional provision for citizen lawmaking. All of Utah's I&R law is in the state statutes (Zimmerman, December 1999). In most states, there is no special protection for citizen-made statutes; the legislature can begin to amend them immediately.
• Statute law referendum is a constitutionally-defined, citizen-initiated, petition process of the "proposed veto of all or part of a legislature-made law," which, if successful, repeals the standing law. It is used at the state level in twenty-four states: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming (Cronin, 1989).
• The recall is a constitutionally-defined, citizen-initiated, petition process, which, if successful, removes an elected official from office by "recalling" the official's election. In most state and sub-state jurisdictions having this governance component, voting for the ballot that determines the recall includes voting for one of a slate of candidates to be the next office holder, if the recall is successful. It is utilized at the state level in eighteen states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington and Wisconsin (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2004, Recall Of State Officials).

There are now a total of 24 U.S. states with constitutionally-defined, citizen-initiated, direct democracy governance components (Zimmerman, December 1999). In the United States, for the most part only one-time majorities are required (simple majority of those voting) to approve any of these components.

In addition, many localities around the U.S. also provide for some or all of these direct democracy governance components, and in specific classes of initiatives (like those for raising taxes), there is a supermajority voting threshold requirement. Even in states where direct democracy components are scant or nonexistent at the state level, there often exists local options for deciding specific issues, such as whether a county should be "wet" or "dry" in terms of whether alcohol sales are allowed.

In the U.S. region of New England, many municipalities (styled towns in contrast to cities) practice a very limited form of home rule, and decide local affairs through the direct democratic process of the town meeting.

[edit] Venezuela

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources (ideally, using inline citations). Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2009)

Venezuela has been dabbling with direct democracy since its new constitution was approved in 1999. However, this situation has been on for less than ten years, and results are controversial. Still, its constitution does enshrine the right of popular initiative, sets minimal requirements for referenda (a few of which have already been held) and does include the institution of recall for any elected authority (which has been unsuccessfully used against its incumbent president).

[edit] Contemporary movements

Some contemporary movements working for direct democracy via direct democratic praxis include:

• Abahlali baseMjondolo - South African shack dwellers' movement
• Inclusive Democracy - Takis Fotopoulos' Inclusive Democracy Project & Journal of Inclusive Democracy
• Direktdemokraterna - Direct democracy party in Sweden
• Aktivdemokrati.se - Direct democratic party aiming for the parliament of Sweden
• Direct Democracy - Campaign group within the U.K. Conservative Party
• Metagovernment - Website implementing open source governance as a replacement for current governments
• Homeless Workers' Movement - Brazilian shack dwellers' movement
• Landless People's Movement - South African movement of people without land
• Landless Workers' Movement - Brazilian landless people's movement
• Vote.org - In 2003, registered U.S. voters began voting to ratify the National Initiative for Democracy led by former US Senator Mike Gravel. The National Initiative would allow more, better and national ballot initiatives. http://ni4d.us/
• Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign - Militant poor people's movement in Cape Town
• Zapatista Army of National Liberation - Mexican indigenous people's movement

[edit] Direct democracy in school

A democratic school is a school that centers on providing a democratic educational environment featuring "full and equal" participation from both students and staff. These learning environments position youth voice as the central actor in the educative process by engaging students in every facet of school operations, including learning, teaching, leadership, justice, and democracy, through experience.^[8][9] Adult staff support students by offering facilitation according to students' interest.

Sudbury model of democratic education schools are run by a School Meeting where the students and staff participate exclusively and equally. Everyone votes, if they come. Attendance is optional. There are no proxies. So what happens at school is just what happens everywhere in a free democracy: when an issue is dear to someone's hearts, that person comes. Otherwise, they usually don't bother.^[10]

Another tenet of Sudbury schools is giving students the power to choose what to do with their time: individual freedom, freedom of choice, and learning through experience. There are no required classes, and usually there is no requirement to take classes at all. Students are free to choose an activity that they desire, or feel the need to do. They are free to continue activities for as long or short a time as they see fit. In this way they learn self-discipline, self-regulated learning and self-initiation. They also gain the advantage of the increases in both learning speed and learning retention that accompany engagement in an activity that one is passionate about. The students at these schools are responsible for and empowered to direct their own education from a very young age. All of this facilitated, supported and managed by the school's democratic framework.

[edit] See also

• Anarchism
• Consensus democracy
• Deliberative democracy
• Democratic centralism
• Democracy
• Demoex - Democracy Experiment
• E-democracy
• Inclusive Democracy
• Open politics
• Open source governance
• Participatory democracy
• Participatory economics
• Radical transparency
• Representative democracy
• Sociocracy
• Soviet democracy
• Workers' councils

[edit] Notes

[edit] References

• Arnon, Harel (January 2008). "A Theory of Direct Legislation" (LFB Scholarly)
• Cary, M. (1967) A History Of Rome: Down To The Reign Of Constantine. St. Martin's Press, 2nd edition.
• Cronin, Thomas E. (1989). Direct Democracy: The Politics Of Initiative, Referendum, And Recall. Harvard University Press.
• Finley, M.I. (1973). Democracy Ancient And Modern. Rutgers University Press.
• Fotopoulos, Takis, Towards an Inclusive Democracy: The Crisis of the Growth Economy and the Need for a New Liberatory Project (London & NY: Cassell, 1997).
• Fotopoulos, Takis, The Multidimensional Crisis and Inclusive Democracy. (Athens: Gordios, 2005). (English translation of the book with the same title published in Greek).
• Fotopoulos, Takis, "Liberal and Socialist “Democracies” versus Inclusive Democracy", The International Journal of INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY, vol.2, no.2, (January 2006).
• Gerber, Elisabeth R. (1999). The Populist Paradox: Interest Group Influence And The Promise Of Direct Legislation. Princeton University Press.
• A. Gutmann, D. F. Thompson, "Why Deliberative Democracy?", Princeton University Press, 2004, Google Books
• Hansen, Mogens Herman (1999). The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes: Structure, Principles and Ideology. University of Oklahoma, Norman (orig. 1991).
• Kobach, Kris W. (1993). The Referendum: Direct Democracy In Switzerland. Dartmouth Publishing Company.
• Köchler, Hans (1995). A Theoretical Examination of the Dichotomy between Democratic Constitutions and Political Reality. University Center Luxemburg.
• Magleby, David B. (1984). Direct Legislation: Voting On Ballot Propositions In The United States. Johns Hopkins University Press.
• National Conference of State Legislatures, (2004). Recall Of State Officials
• Polybius (c.150 BC). The Histories. Oxford University, The Great Histories Series, Ed., Hugh R. Trevor-Roper and E. Badian. Translated by Mortimer Chanbers. Washington Square Press, Inc (1966).
• Reich, Johannes (2008). An Interactional Model of Direct Democracy - Lessons from the Swiss Experience. SSRN Working Paper.
• Raaflaub K. A., Ober J., Wallace R. W., Origins of Democracy in Ancient Greece, University of California Press, 2007
• Zimmerman, Joseph F. (March 1999). The New England Town Meeting: Democracy In Action. Praeger Publishers.
• Zimmerman, Joseph F. (December 1999). The Initiative: Citizen Law-Making. Praeger Publishers.

[edit] External links

This article's external links may not follow Wikipedia's content policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links.

[edit] Canada

• Canadians for Direct Democracy (CDD)

[edit] General

• ATHENS Webjournal for direct democracy
• British Columbia Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform
• A comprehensive plan for 21st Century Democracy
• Citizen Power Magazine: Direct Democracy for the 21st Century
• C2D ─ Research and Documentation Centre on Direct Democracy
• Comparisons with diagrams
• Direct democracy at the Open Directory Project
• Direct Democracy Meeting Place
• Direct Democracy research, experience and resources from International IDEA
• Initiative and Referendum Institute Europe ─ Europe's first think tank on direct democracy
• International Network for Inclusive Democracy
• I&R-GB ─ Proposals and campaign resources for direct democracy such as citizens' initiative, referendum, and recall in the United Kingdom.
• A Admin of a starting site U.S.W.G.O. talk about their affiliation with the Direct Democracy Party
• Midwest Populist-Collection of Essays on Democracy
• Worldwide Direct Democracy Movement
• Open Direct Democracy Open Source project aiming at creating software in support of citizen driven direct democracy for organizations and governments at any level.

[edit] Germany

• ðÐ ─ German and international dd-portal.

[edit] Iceland

• Direct Democracy in Iceland Website setup as a Shadow Parliament that automatically fetches legal document from Althingi, the Icelandic Parliament and gives citizens features to interact with the legal process, like voting, commenting and changing.

[edit] Israel

• Kol1 ─ Movement for Direct Democracy In Israel.
• MyVote (in Hebrew) ─ Movement for Direct Democracy In Israel.

[edit] Italy

• democraticidiretti.org - Association of Direct Democrats
• listapartecipata.org ─ Roman Chapter of the Association of Direct Democrats' campaign to present a list of candidates for Rome Province Election to be controlled through an ad-hoc temporary organization of citizens.

[edit] New Zealand

• Binding Citizens Initiated Referenda
• Direct Democracy Party of New Zealand

[edit] Poland

• Stowarzyszenie Demokracja Bezpośrednia ─ Association for direct democracy in Poland.

[edit] Spain

• Más Democracia ─ Association for direct democracy in Spain.

[edit] Sweden

• Aktivdemokrati - Direct democratic party, aiming for the parliament of Sweden
• Direktdemokraterna ─ Swedish direct democracy party
• Demoex - Democracy Experiment in Sweden
• Ovid Pacific Boyd: A New Form of eDemocracy Political Party in Sweden.
• Erik Moberg: Positive and normative aspects of direct democracy - the case of Sweden in a general context

[edit] United States

• The National Initiative for Democracy
• Initiative & Referendum Institute
• The Populist Party of America
• Vote.org: Taking the "mock" out of democracy!