I don't know where the line is drawn. One could certainly argue by those metrics that most countries that consider themselves democracies do not fit that defini

I don't know where the line is drawn. One could certainly argue by those metrics that most countries that consider themselves democracies do not fit that definition. That said, I do think that when less than 1% of the country has voting rights, it's hard to call that a democracy by any measure. Is a dictatorship a democracy if the one person in power holds a "vote" for himself? What if there are two people that split the power? > One advantage of limited voters (e.g. "landowners") is, that the system is less likely to run into an out of control socialist redistribution system. I'm not sure how to respond to that. I suggest you read up on the history of Icelandic politics, I particularly recommend reading up on "vistarband" and related concepts, if you really think that this system is somehow more fair than allowing universal suffrage. The result was that this small group of landowners passed laws making anyone who did not have land (and therefore voting power) into indentured servants.