Democracy Index 2016
21–30 of 50 posts
Re: Democracy Index 2016
#22Are they trying to say that the democracy is now worse because the wrong guys was elected?
> because of a further erosion of trust in government and elected officials there. Guessing it is actually a combination of very low approval ratings across the board and the fact that the guy who was elected is encouraging distrust in the system. So if you don't approve of / trust him, you don't trust the government. If you do trust him, you don't trust the government.
> because of a further erosion of trust in government and elected officials there.
As perceived by the media... the same media who wanted the other candidate to be elected.
Re: Democracy Index 2016
#23Are they trying to say that the democracy is now worse because the wrong guys was elected?
Looking at the data in Wikipedia[1], USA seems to be getting low scores for "Functioning of government" and "Political participation".
Also notice that the US score only fell from 8.05 to 7.98 [2] from last year, so the difference isn't that big. It was barely in the top category (8+) to begin with.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index [2]: http://www.eiu.com/Handlers/WhitepaperHandler.ashx?fi=Democr...
Re: Democracy Index 2016
#24The only surprising thing is that the US was ever classed as a "full" democracy. The US system largely inherits from the UK's system, which is also a largely broken version of democracy (with the Tories getting a disproportionate number of seats per vote, and smaller parties getting no seats in spite of having millions of voters).
Sweden is one country who has what I'd call a "full" democracy. You can read about seat distribution here[0] and the method here[1].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Sweden#Seat_alloc... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster/Sainte-Lagu%C3%AB_meth...
The US and UK likely won't fix their flawed system because it is perfectly designed to direct power to an elite few while locking out everyone else. The biggest problem is that people vote for parties, so the parties in most areas select the winner for the voter (i.e. if an area is a Tory/Republican/whatever stronghold, the voters are going to tick that box no matter the name, making the political party itself the ultimate kingmaker).
I've lived in multiple areas where the winner of the election had never set foot in that area before. They were literally plucked from thin air, placed in a "safe" area, and got the win. Because people vote political party, and political parties pick who gets the seats. Thus allowing an elite to pick our leadership.
Re: Democracy Index 2016
#25Are they trying to say that the democracy is now worse because the wrong guys was elected?
I think they're trying to say that the democracy is now worse because we have a leader who is lying to the media, threatening voting rights based on unsupported claims, silencing scientists from sharing publicly funded research, and is charging journalists with felony charges for covering protests against him.
How about the previous President who ignored the Constitution blatantly (4th Amendment anyone?) and continued the global surveillance of US Citizens without any due process (unless you consider Secret Courts one?), and lying blatantly about it in the first place? Does that count for anything?
Re: Democracy Index 2016
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
> because of a further erosion of trust in government and elected officials there. Guessing it is actually a combination of very low approval ratings across the board and the fact that the guy who was elected is encouraging distrust in the system. So if you don't approve of / trust him, you don't trust the government. If you do trust him, you don't trust the government.
> because of a further erosion of trust in government and elected officials there. As perceived by the media... the same media who wanted the other candidate to be elected.
I'll assume you downvoted me because you think that the article is wrong and not because you think I am wrong in my assessment of what the article is saying.
I don't disagree that the media at large would have preferred the other candidate. That would be true if the media was a perfect statistical representation of the country, and the media is not, it's largely focused in population centers, where the preference was overwhelming.
Re: Democracy Index 2016
#27@US people: Are you aware of how election campaigns in other countries are like? It is no stars'n'stripes confetti craze with hot-air "discussions" and no more than two 'choices' everywhere. I was quite surprised by how much hot air was changing the sides when I saw one of the famous US television duels for the first time in the 2012 campaign. I almost completely ignored the 2016 campaign (apart from the results) given that it was looking much worse. How can an event with such a lack of serious discussion refer to itself as a democratic procedure?
Re: Democracy Index 2016
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
> because of a further erosion of trust in government and elected officials there. Guessing it is actually a combination of very low approval ratings across the board and the fact that the guy who was elected is encouraging distrust in the system. So if you don't approve of / trust him, you don't trust the government. If you do trust him, you don't trust the government.
> because of a further erosion of trust in government and elected officials there. As perceived by the media... the same media who wanted the other candidate to be elected.
Well functioning media are also an important factor for a democracy. Apparently many people doubt the US has that. No matter how you look at it something important is broken. The difference in perception is what's the broken part.
Re: Democracy Index 2016
#29Are they trying to say that the democracy is now worse because the wrong guys was elected?
No. The new administration is systematically undermining the norms that held up our strong democracy, on purpose. Any student of history recognizes moves like lying about crowd sizes, delegitimizing peaceful protests, and undermining the press. The president is lying daily about millions of people voting fraudulently; why should anyone have any confidence in our democracy, whether you somehow crazily believe him, or…
You seem to be going with the assumption that previous presidents told the truth. Trump is not as charismatic with the lies like Obama.
Re: Democracy Index 2016
#30Are they trying to say that the democracy is now worse because the wrong guys was elected?
> because of a further erosion of trust in government and elected officials there. Guessing it is actually a combination of very low approval ratings across the board and the fact that the guy who was elected is encouraging distrust in the system. So if you don't approve of / trust him, you don't trust the government. If you do trust him, you don't trust the government.
"So if you don't approve of / trust him, you don't trust the government. If you do trust him, you don't trust the government.", are you talking about Obama/Clinton?
The ones who have destroyed the Middle East, armed the syrian terrorists, buried Osama Bin Laden without showing its corpse ( but they showed Gaddafi's one, and he was muslim too, really strange ).
And the same who are spouting nonsense on the "russian hacking" without showing proof.
Seriously, if the american people distrust the government, it is because of the globalist oligarchs puppets actions.