* Elected representatives and judges can participate in ways you can't.
* Some sub-jurisdictions (states/territories/cities) have more political power per capita than others.
* Some democracies ban felons, children, the mentally ill, and non-citizen residents from voting.
* Minority political groups might not be listed on the ballot, or be completely disqualified after the primaries.
I don't mean to imply you support any of those things - but democracy neither guarantees nor is the sole path to having a voice and equal participation in a society.
Indeed. Democracy relies on inequality (giving an exclusive clique of people superpowers over everyone else) in order to (allegedly) "bring about equality".
That's like saying "In order for me to give you a rape-free life, I'mma gonna have to rape you now."
IOW, absurd.
So you disagree with the common definition of democracy?
In other words you want to impose your meaning on others instead of accepting the consensual majority view ( i.e. the definition found in such places as
dictionaries. )? Is it more important to you to have a crusade against that word, based on your definition, or to try and understand what I, and others,
are actually trying to say.
After all I have said do you think, that when I use the word democracy, I am actually advocating an exclusive clique having special privileges and powers
over everyone else? Seriously?
Well lets forget about that word for the moment and tell me instead if you agree with this?
"The best social system is one where everyone is given a voice and allowed equal participation."
Yes such a system, which some of us might call a "democracy", does often involve something that might be called "sacrifice" but is perhaps better called "compromise".
Its also called "playing nice" and "getting along with others" ... something most people learned in kindergarten.