If a democracy is simply a "system in which leaders are selected through competitive elections", then is it ever fair to call an electoral system a democracy if one part or a specific group of the population the population does not have the right to vote? Until the 19th century, many Western democracies had property criteria specified in their electoral laws. In the United States, for example, the electoral system established in 1776 initially favored only privileged white men, because only white men with some property rights had the right to vote. Furthermore, women did not gain the right to vote until 1920, with the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment, and even when African Americans first gained the right to vote, many were still limited due to taxes imposed during elections. Although I agree that democracy consists of competitive elections, as Przeworski says, I also believe that the minimum definition should include the universal right of citizens to vote. If democracy is defined by “majority rules,” how accurate are election results in determining what the majority of a population wants if some people aren't even allowed to vote? Although the fundamental difference between democracy and dictatorship is that democracy holds competitive elections that command respect, these elections should not include restrictions on who can vote based on race, gender or ethnicity. ethnic origin, provided that democracy is defined as a system of government in which power rests with the people, who can govern either directly or through elected officials.