Assuming by “we” you are referring to Americans, which to me not a democracy, but a plutocracy; that is, a society that is ruled or controlled by people of great wealth, either as a individual or organization.

As for American media, issues related to pandering to readers is likely related to it deregulating media industry in the 80s; for more information see:

https://apnews.com/article/business-immigration-deregulation...

Which then is a true democracy according to you?

One where majority of citizens actively participate in matters impacting the majority of citizens, understand all significant views on a topic, and no entities are allowed have power beyond their own personal independent interests. As is, to me, America, Russian, China, EU, etc are all plutocratic — because the average person doesn’t want the responsibility of dealing that comes with running a society.

Not many democracies then...

So what is an example then?

There is no example, especially if you’re limiting to significant global powers.

What if we don’t limit to significant global powers and look at all countries on earth?

For starters, have you reviewed this Wikipedia page:

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

As for my specific response, the existence of a non-global power example to me is irrelevant, since it’s unlikely to change the course of humanity. If you have an example, specific counter point, request for clarification, etc — happy to attempt to respond.

This comment by me within this thread might also expand on the topic you’re asking about:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34629443

1. I have seen that page multiple times. For starters, what does it have to do with plutocracy? Do you know there are different forms of democracy? What does a direct democracy have to do with plutocracy? You seem to conflate true democracy with direct democracy.

You can have a true democracy that is indirect and not plutocratic. You can assert otherwise but nothing in the definitions contradict that.

2. We seem to be going back and forth. But it seems you don't have any country that matches your original definition

3. > As for my specific response, the existence of a non-global power example to me is irrelevant, since it’s unlikely to change the course of humanity. If you have an example, specific counter point, request for clarification, etc — happy to attempt to respond.

This is another strange shift in the thread. I am *not* asking for a non-global power that will impact the course of humanity. My simple original request was just a single power that fits your *original* definition of true democracy (not the modified one you suddenly have presented here).

It is not irrelevant as a true democratic non-global power can become a huge power (thanks to true democracy^TM).

Direct Democracy was addressed and criticized specifically by American founding fathers. You should read the fedaralist papers, specifically the numbers written by Madison. They were aware of what I see here as an extremely naive case for "democracy".

No thanks, if you have a point to raise, please do so yourself in plain-English, I am not going to read 80-100 documents written hundreds of years ago by men who thought a democracy meant 3-5% of the population should be able to control the rest.

And yet you link to entire Wikipedia pages yourself?

> Well, I think we had a solid bipartisan support for classical-liberism up until 2015.

This is a fantasy history. We have had solid bipartisan support for neoliberalism (property rights are king) and neoconservatism (and we need motivating myths about them to keep the proles in line) for a long time. That consensus continues. "Classical liberalism" has never been popular anywhere.

edit: we're having an extreme authoritarian wave as a reaction to the internet, but we shouldn't pretend like we don't come from countries that used to open people's mail to look for pamphlets about contraception.

Pandering is the only way to feed and house the journalists.