Talk:Popular sovereignty/Archive 1

Archive 1

Problems with article

See:

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h228.html http://www.basiclaw.net/Principles/Popular%20sovereignty.htm http://www.google.ca/search?num=20&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22popular+sovereignty%22&btnG=Google+Search

DJ Clayworth 18:25, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I believe that recent edits have been detrimental and not factual. Here is the previous version of the article, reproduced in its entirety:

Popular sovereignty is the doctrine that sovereignty ultimately resides in the populace as a whole, rather than in a monarch, an aristocracy, or a plutocracy. The concept of popular sovereignty provides one of the theoretical underpinnings of democracy, whether that is direct democracy, representative democracy, or plebiscitory democracy.

This doctrine stands at an opposite pole from the doctrine of the divine right of kings.

This could be much expanded, and "plebescitory" was misspelled, but pretty much all of this was removed without explanation and replaced by what seems to me to be an opinion-laden and inaccurate article. Rather than have an edit war, I will tag it NPOV and factually disputed and hope to discuss here.

1. Certainly Hobbes, for one, did not believe that popular sovereignty necessarily excluded monarchy. And would anyone seriously argue that, say, the Netherlands or the UK or Spain today is not based fundamentally on popular sovereignty, even though they all have monarchs?
2. "The British overthrew their incompetent king to replace him with a similar system(for awhile)." This presumably refers to Cromwell's Commonwealth, but seems deliberately obscure.
3. "The French had their revolution and killed all the nobility..." This is so exaggerated I don't know how to reply.

I could go on, but I assume my point is clear. As I say, I'd like to talk this through & agree on a substantive article rather than have an edit war.

-- Jmabel 18:42, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Recent complete rewrite removes my objections. -- Jmabel 04:32, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Popular sovereignty and democracy

"Popular sovereignty is thus a basic tenet of most democracies." True enough, but I think a bit misleading and deserves expansion. Popular sovereignty is also often the legal mandate of undemocratic states (e.g. Mussolini's Italy, all of the past and present communist states, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, or present-day Iraq with its puppet government). Also, although most constitutional monarchies today at least informally admit popular sovereignty and consider the monarch to serve at the behest of the people, this was not always the case: as England (and later Great Britain and the U.K.) became more and more democratic over the centuries, the first serious assertion of other-than-royal sovereignty was Cromwell's Commonwealth. Then with the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution it goes back and forth, but even a monarch as late as George III never willingly recognized any sovereignty other than his own "by the grace of God". That formula is used even today, although presumably almost no one takes it seriously. -- Jmabel 17:32, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

The uncertainty I had about the formal underpinnings of some of Europe's constitutional democracies was the reason I wrote "most". Note, for instance, that Louis-Philippe of France called himself "king of the French" and not "king of France" to affirm that he believed his leadership derived from popular sovereignty, and not from some divine right.

What do you think of my current suggestion? David.Monniaux 18:03, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Much more on the mark. I doubt it can get better without some real research.

Until someone does some solid research on the history of the doctrine, this article is just waiting to become a lightning rod for POV wars. (e.g. what examples of usurped sovereignty will be included?) I hope that whoever decides they need to significantly expand this does so by some actual historical research instead of by insertion of material that merely lengthens without strengthening. -- Jmabel 19:13, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

I agree completely, with the above. I had a bright student mention Hobbes in relation to popular sovereignty and cite this article. It is an unbelievably reductive and distorted (not to mention shockingly short) article. mcrowe (13 Dec 2005)

Forms of government

Evil Monkey recently placed this in Category:Forms of government. I don't think that is correct. Popular sovereignty is a theory underlying the right to govern, not a form of government. Not a big deal, and I don't know what would be the most appropriate category, but this should change. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:47, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Popular Sovereignty and Territorial Sovereignty

I tightened this up, but I still don't understand what this is doing in this article, beyond its first sentence? As the text itself points out, it's a totally different topic. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Taiwan, which is still under military occupation under the Republic of China on behalf of the United States (San Francisco Peace Treaty), serves as a good example."

I'm not sure that is really NPOV. The PRC would probably consider Taiwan to be under military occupation.

Taiwan's official position is that they are the government of all of China and the mainland is under military occupation.

They where the government and only held on to a small part of the former territory. (BTW neither the Republic of China nor the People's Republic of China were invited to the San Francisco Peace Conference) Another viewpoint is that Taiwan is de facto an independent country, and some would say it should be de jure so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.104.239.16 (talk • contribs) 14 Feb 2006

After giving several days for comment, I have removed the Taiwan example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.104.239.16 (talk • contribs) 14 Feb 2006

Two separate concepts

"Popular sovereignty" as a general political theory needs to be separated from "popular sovereignty", the U.S. concept backed by the Democratic Party in the 1840s and 1850s as a solution to whether slavery should be expanded to U.S. territories. (This concept is the one that is equivalent to "squatter sovereignty" since presumably the people who would be canvassed in such a plebescite would be ones living in the territory illegally prior to its organization and opening for settlement and hence were "squatters".) The "popular sovereignty" of slavery apologists such as Steven A. Douglas probably deserves its own article or its own section under "History of the Democratic Party (United States)" with a mention and a "See also" here; the redirect from "squatter sovereignty" should go there. For now, I'm only removing the blue links from the opening sentence in which the article name is repeated since that is a direct violation of Wikistyle. Rlquall 12:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - Jmabel | Talk 05:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Franklin's Understanding Of Popular Sovereignty

I am proposing to insert new text in the place of the Franklin quote, used in the second paragraph of the Wikipedia entry on popular sovereignty, as an example of the meaning of popular sovereignty. There are several reasons why this might be desirable:

• The cited source for the Franklin quotation is the University of Virginia's "Thomas Jefferson Digital Archive". The quote is found there in the archive subsection, "Thomas Jefferson On Politics & Government." That section contains "2,700 excerpts from Jefferson's writings, ordered thematically, illustrating the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson. Edited by Eyler Robert Coates, Sr., editor (1995-2001 compilation)." The concern here is that the site does not profess to be a research source on Franklin. The web site points to no source for its contention that Franklin "wrote" the quoted statement and that in doing so, Franklin was expressing his view of the meaning of popular sovereignty. In this light, the footnote to the Franklin quote fails to verify the quotation or its meaning. Indeed, the compiler of the University of Virginia site does not profess to have any particular expertise with regard to Franklin or his writings. See Eyler Robert Coates, Sr.

• A quick check of available sources found no other reference to the Franklin statement as 1) something that he wrote and 2) as his view of popular sovereignty. I did find the exact quote of Franklin's statement not as something he "wrote." Rather it was a paraphrase of something he stated at the Federal Constitutional Convention on July 26, 1787. In James Madison's Journal of the Federal Convention the entry for July 26, 1787 at page 436 reports George Mason of Virginia summarizing the various ways in which the delegates had considered the selection of a President. Mason argued that the President's term of office should "be ... for sever years, and [the President would] be ineligible a second time.” Franklin then spoke in favor of this proposition as follows:

"It seems to have been imagined by some, that in returning to the mass of the people was degrading to the magistrate. This he thought was contrary to republican principles. In free governments the rulers are the servants, and the people their superiors and sovereigns. For the former, therefore, to return among the latter, was not to degrade, but to promote, them. And it would be imposing an unreasonable burden on them to keep them always in a state of servitude, and not allow them to become again one of the masters."

(emphasis added)

• The quotation is James Madison paraphrasing a statement by Franklin. Madison did not purport to make a word-for-word account of the convention, but only an account of the tenor of the discussion at the Convention. In a sense, one might argue that the statement's explicit logic may owe more to Madison, a strong proponent of popular sovereignty, than Franklin. But this is an issue of original research, which supposedly we are to keep out of the Wikipedia. It is certainly plausible that Franklin's argument for a limited term of office for the president with no re-election was based on the concept of popular sovereignty. But coming to this conclusion would fit the definition of "original research," barred under Wikipedia principles.

In lieu of the Franklin quotation, I propose to find historians or other analysts who have examined the American Revolution and have cited various speakers as describing popular sovereignty. Unless others argue otherwise, I am proposing to delete the Franklin quotation and use in its place a better verified statement. The Franklin quotation fails Wikipedia criteria for verification because it ties the Franklin statement to his view of popular sovereignty based on a website focusing on the writings of Thomas Jefferson (not Franklin) and it is not clear that Franklin "wrote" the statement, rather than that it is a paraphrase by James Madison of what Franklin said in support of term limits for the President. Rushlite (talk) 08:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)