1989 (Appenzell Ausserrhoden) and 1990 (Appenzell Innerrhoden) where the last two cantons that allowed a woman to vote. Most already allowed it in the 1970s. However 1970s is still way to late and shameful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_suffrage_in_Switzerland

While I don't disagree that my country has had (and in some aspects still has) a backwards mentality, I fail to see how your comment has anything to do with the conversation.

I take the point as a counter to the notion that a pure democracy is inherently superior to other mixed forms of democracy, where voting is less direct.

If 50% of the population aren't allowed to vote, it's not a pure democracy.

It's easy to say after the facts, but if women aren't allowed to vote and aren't citizens, then 100% of citizens do vote.

Most systems we call democracies don't consider their population under 18 as citizens, thus don't allow them to vote, and that's usually around 20% of population. Most also don't consider that immigrants should vote, and in the case of Switzerland that's another 20 or 25%.

I'm obviously not saying that not allowing women to vote is good or anything, but that you can't say a system is not "purely" democratic just because of full class of population doesn't vote. As long as 100% of citizens vote, then it's democracy (like in ancient Greece, where no more than 20% of population were citizens).

I didn't imagine my statement would be so controversial. Granted, it's just my personal opinion, but if women aren't citizens that's not a democracy either.

> if women aren't citizens that's not a democracy either.

And if children aren't citizens? If immigrants (who live in the country, pay taxes, etc.) aren't citizens?

The place where democracy first happened, where the name came from, was ancient Athens circa 500BC. The only people allowed to vote were adult male citizens who had been through military training.

I do (lest there be any doubt) agree that a polity in which a large fraction of the population can't vote is an unsatisfactory sort of democracy. But I think what's wrong with these places is that they are bad democracies, not that they aren't democracies.

(The line between "bad democracy" and "not democracy" is a bit fuzzy. Take an ordinary democracy and say that you can't vote if your net worth is negative; what you get is, at least in my opinion, a bad democracy but still a democracy. But say that you can't vote unless your net worth is in the top 5% of the population and you've got a plutocracy. The transition between the two is a gradual and ill-defined one.)

Are you sure about what you're saying on the term "citizen"?

Ancient Greece was different, however, long before women voting rights, all of them had citizenship and laws detailing when and how that citizenship can be obtained; similarly right now month old infants definitely have citizenship and there are even some legal issues on how double citizenship is resolved for such kids.

'Less direct' voting is not voting. You might elect representatives and hope for the best but you cannot vote on single issues.