The Lighthouse of Democracy In the World: Sweden!

[metadigital]

[Gorgon]

It must have been made to suit the needs of the liberal mafia, of course.

Edited November 23, 2006 by Gorgon

[Volourn]

meta: I'm the troll? I'm not the one who made a thread those main goal is to bash other countries (Inamely Britian and the US0. I mean the gu even 'jokenly' admits.

 

How the heck does one really measure some of the things this survey supposedly does?

 

Turnout? Since when does actual voter turn out prove or disprove a country is democratic? The whole point of a dmeocracy is for the citizens to have choice. This should include the choice of voting or not voting. Countries who force their citizens to vote udner threat of fine or jailtime should lose points not gain them. I'm not syaing Sweden is such a country; but I do know some European countries have such a law, IIRC. I could go through the whole lists of 'evidence' and 'factual evidence' and do the same but it's a waste of time.

 

It's mall about arrogant bragging rights and the ability to say in a bigoted way,"My country is better than youyrs! HAHAHA!:

Edited November 23, 2006 by Volourn

[Pidesco]

Countries who force their citizens to vote udner threat of fine or jailtime should lose points not gain them. I'm not syaing Sweden  is such a country; but I do know some European countries have such a law, IIRC.

 

Which European countries are you talking about? Also, turnout is an excellent way to measure the success of a democracy. Low turnout indicates that people don't care about who governs their country.

 

 

Finally, I advise you to get Firefox 2.0. It can spellcheck your posts. "jokenly" is not a word by the way.

[Musopticon?]

It's mall about arrogant bragging rights  and the ability to say in a bigoted way,"My country is better than youyrs! HAHAHA!:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, all things considered Sweden is a whole lot better place to live than US of A.

[Pidesco]

Indeed.

[Volourn]

"Actually, all things considered Sweden is a whole lot better place to live than US of A."

 

Good on you, and your opinion.

 

 

"Which European countries are you talking about?"

 

I can't recall offhand; but I remmeber a disucssion awhile back here debating the merits of forcing or not forcing people to vote whether they wnated to or not. If it wasn't over an European country; but some other country than oops. The main point still stands.

 

 

"Also, turnout is an excellent way to measure the success of a democracy. Low turnout indicates that people don't care about who governs their country."

 

I disagree. Success of a democracy shouldn't ahve to do with the number of people who vote; but the choice to vote. I ahven't voted in every election because sometimes I feel there's no need. My town just had an election. i didn't bother to vote because eitehr candcidate was gonna be fine for me. Other times, I don't care for either one. But, guess what, in a real democracy I have that option to vote for who I want or not at all. I do vote most of the time; but that's a personal choice given to me due to living in a democracy.

 

 

"jokenly" is not a word by the way."

 

It is now. New words are created all the time. Otherwise, dialogue becomes stagnant. Every word we use had to be 'created' or used for the first time at some point.

Edited November 23, 2006 by Volourn

[kumquatq3]

Which European countries are you talking about? Also, turnout is an excellent way to measure the success of a democracy. Low turnout indicates that people don't care about who governs their country.

 

Meh, not necessarily. High turnout can often mean people are unhappy with their government on some serious fundamental level, etc.

 

IMO, a better way to rate it is how "free" people are to vote, rather than what % votes. Not voting can be a choice, after all. Isn't that freedom?

 

 

Also, the US isn't sitting next to Iran or something, their right there at the top, how is this supposed to be an insult?

 

Also, it seems that anti-abortion stances of a country actually might hurt it's measure, as it's addressed on the website of the group that made this list, under where they talk about individual countries. While I'm pro-choice, I find that odd.

[kumquatq3]

It's mall about arrogant bragging rights  and the ability to say in a bigoted way,"My country is better than youyrs! HAHAHA!:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, all things considered Sweden is a whole lot better place to live than US of A.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

US GNI/Capita: $37,870

 

Sweden GNI/Capita: $28,910

 

enjoy your arbitrary ranking of freedom

[Deraldin]

"jokenly" is not a word by the way."

 

It is now. New words are created all the time. Otherwise, dialogue becomes stagnant. Every word we use had to be 'created' or used  for the first time at some point.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That never worked for me during English class so I don't see why it should work for you. <_<

[Lucius]

I think the US just needs a few more political parties, get something to choose from rather than just the two

 

Oh and Sweden might have taken the "most democratic" price, but we're still the happiest! :joy:

[Pidesco]

"Jokingly" is a perfectly good, existing word to use instead of "jokenly".

[Hildegard]

Congratulations to Sweden and other successful European countries...

[kumquatq3]

Congratulations to Sweden and other successful European countries...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the US, Japan, and Costa Rica don't deserve your thanks?

 

Its almost if your trying to slight them :D

[Pidesco]

Which European countries are you talking about? Also, turnout is an excellent way to measure the success of a democracy. Low turnout indicates that people don't care about who governs their country.

 

Meh, not necessarily. High turnout can often mean people are unhappy with their government on some serious fundamental level, etc.

 

 

Yes, but it also means they are interested in helping decide who gets to govern next. A democracy where no one votes is a failure.

 

 

IMO, a better way to rate it is how "free" people are to vote, rather than what % votes. Not voting can be a choice, after all. Isn't that freedom?

 

And by not voting, they are effectively saying they don't want to live in a democracy.

[Volourn]

"And by not voting, they are effectively saying they don't want to live in a democracy."

 

Absolutely false.

[kumquatq3]

Yes, but it also means they are interested in helping decide who gets to govern next. A democracy where no one votes is a failure.

 

"No one" is the key. Is a country where the majority votes a failure?

 

I think your arguing on a philosophical level here, which is fine, but it's not necessarily reflective of reality.

 

If a candidate, like many incumbents in the US, is almost assured a victory and some of his supports don't go out to vote because they know he is a lock, is that "bad"?

 

There are lots of reasons people choose not to vote.

 

And by not voting, they are effectively saying they don't want to live in a democracy.

 

Not at all. I don't feel I need to argue this one.

[Sand]

People who don't vote have no right to complain about those who got voted in. That is my view of it. That is why I try to vote at every election. I like to complain.

[WITHTEETH]

I believe democracy also relies on a INFORMED populous not just a voting populous. I've come across many who don't know what liberal means. One guy even voted on one issue, he didn't want to wear a helmet while driving a motorcycle.

[Hildegard]

Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the US, Japan, and Costa Rica don't deserve your thanks?

 

Its almost if your trying to slight them  :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, they don't.

[Deraldin]

Hah! That list has a rating for "Functioning of Government." Somehow Canada managed to tie for third place for that score.

 

EDIT: Bah! You and your attempted double post!

Edited November 23, 2006 by Deraldin

[Hildegard]

Joking :D

[kumquatq3]

Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the US, Japan, and Costa Rica don't deserve your thanks?

 

Its almost if your trying to slight them  :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, they don't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I love it when you make it easy

[Pidesco]

Yes, but it also means they are interested in helping decide who gets to govern next. A democracy where no one votes is a failure.

 

"No one" is the key. Is a country where the majority votes a failure?

 

I think your arguing on a philosophical level here, which is fine, but it's not necessarily reflective of reality.

 

If a candidate, like many incumbents in the US, is almost assured a victory and some of his supports don't go out to vote because they know he is a lock, is that "bad"?

 

There are lots of reasons people choose not to vote.

 

There are a lot of countries where only less that 50% of the population vote. And at this point, it's fair game to argue that democracy isn't the best way to govern a country. What's the legitimacy of government that was only chosen by, say, 20% of the population? It's practically an invitation for a coup and so, turnout is very important for any democracy. And this, of course makes turnout an essential part of measuring a democracy's success.

[Hildegard]

I love it when you make it easy 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

:"> :D