The Lighthouse of Democracy In the World: Sweden!

[metadigital]

That should teach you NOT to ransack garbage bins!

[Surreptishus]

All the Nordic countries at the top of the Economist study have relatively small populations compared to that of the UK and definitely the USA for example. Iceland (second in the list) has the a population of approximately 300,000 (around 1000 times less than in USA).

 

So does population size have any bearing on the effectiveness of a democracy?

[Nartwak]

Well, postage stamp countries with less populace than some cities and with long-standing histories of racial, religious, and cultural homogeny may tend to be more cooperative within themselves.

Edited November 24, 2006 by Nartwak

[metadigital]

It's even possible to have a successful commune (i.e. communist government) with a small population.

[Gorgon]

" Post #77

 

 

Level 4

 

 

 

Posts: 1,192

 

 

 

 

 

All the Nordic countries at the top of the Economist study have relatively small populations compared to that of the UK and definitely the USA for example. Iceland (second in the list) has the a population of approximately 300,000 (around 1000 times less than in USA).

 

So does population size have any bearing on the effectiveness of a democracy? "

 

I would think so, it is easier to be close to government when you don't number hundreds of millions.

[Xard]

And there's less corruption.

[213374U]

There has to be a #1 in everything, I guess.

 

"Democracy" is overrated anyway.

[Dark_Raven]

That's stupid. It means that people from smaller states are more powerful in an election than the people from the larger states. How democratic is that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is stupid and a reason why I don't vote. My one vote means nothing if the vote for the opposion in my state is greater to the person I am voting for. It means the opposion will win the state and all votes for the person who lost the state add up to nothing. A vote that goes to a candidate should go to that candidtate. The EC is just plain stupid.

[metadigital]

I dunno, I don't really think uninformed, stupid people should have the same vote as informed and intelligent people.

[Dark_Raven]

Intelligence is irrelevent in voters and votees. If it did count for something Bush Jr never would have made it to the polls.

[Pidesco]

I dunno, I don't really think uninformed, stupid people should have the same vote as informed and intelligent people.

 

In that case you are not a democrat. Which is fine.

[metadigital]

I dunno, I don't really think uninformed, stupid people should have the same vote as informed and intelligent people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In that case you are not a democrat. Which is fine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Never said I was.

[213374U]

Intelligence is irrelevent in voters and votees. If it did count for something Bush Jr never would have made it to the polls.

Therefore, intelligence is not only not irrelevant, but seemingly critical for the electoral process if an adequate political elite is to be had. What constitutes "adequate" in this case, is not relevant to the thread.

 

I'm not sure, but it seems to me that you made a statement and then offered what you think is proof of the exact opposite...

 

 

I dunno, I don't really think uninformed, stupid people should have the same vote as informed and intelligent people.

[WinterSun]

I dunno, I don't really think uninformed, stupid people should have the same vote as informed and intelligent people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey, women fought for years to get the vote, man!

[J.E. Sawyer]

So which part of "government by the people, for the people" am I not getting? Because what that means is that the states are treated equally but the people aren't.

The U.S. government ostensibly exists to support the majority, but not at the cost of the minority. Too much of that and you get the proverb about three wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

 

Plurality voting is another matter entirely, and I think it's stupid.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

Democracy, allowing stupid people to decide too.

[Gorgon]

"Plurality voting is another matter entirely, and I think it's stupid."

And throwing out votes is not ?

 

Purality voting would allow the creation of an an actual political spectrum represented in choices of paries, rather than two more or less indeterminable cumbersome giants.

 

Presidential elections should be plurality based.

Edited November 26, 2006 by Gorgon

[Alkera]

There are clear weaknesses in the study. They do not take into account how much campaign funding through companies and external organizations influence the vote in some countries. They also don't take into account the power of lobbyism in certain countries.

 

That is why countries like the US got a way too high score, even though there are strong indications that campaign funding and lobbyism works to cause the rich to have way more political power than the poor.

[mkreku]

There are clear weaknesses in the study. They do not take into account how much campaign funding through companies and external organizations influence the vote in some countries. They also don't take into account the power of lobbyism in certain countries.

 

That is why countries like the US got a way too high score, even though there are strong indications that campaign funding and lobbyism works to cause the rich to have way more political power than the poor.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Very good point. Perhaps that kind of influence is covered under corruption?

[Plano Skywalker]

The U.S. government ostensibly exists to support the majority, but not at the cost of the minority.  Too much of that and you get the proverb about three wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

 

Plurality voting is another matter entirely, and I think it's stupid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

right, democracy is three wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. The Founding Fathers knew that and did not want that. Hence, they gave us a Republic that weighs geography and the diversity of the populace against simple majority rule.

 

of course, they punted on the issue of Slavery which is something that another generation had to deal with.

[J.E. Sawyer]

"Plurality voting is another matter entirely, and I think it's stupid."

And throwing out votes is not ?

 

Purality voting would allow the creation of an an actual political spectrum represented in choices of paries, rather than two more or less indeterminable cumbersome giants.

 

Presidential elections should be plurality based.

Our current system is a plurality voting system. I favor IRV or Condorcet.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting_system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_voting

[Gorgon]

uhh, I thougth purality meant that votes could travel states, but it does say that First past the post is an example of plurality voting so it is in fact the opposite.

 

In any case, I don't really see the need to rank candidates in order of preference, one vote should be sufficient which could either be cast for a specific candidate or for a party.

Edited November 26, 2006 by Gorgon

[Hildegard]

Out of topic: can an American please tell me how much GDP does the US spend on defense and health care.....in percentage?

 

Thank you

Edited November 26, 2006 by Hildegard

[Gorgon]

Defence is 10% on average, double under Reagan as he spent the USSR out of business

 

Why leave wikipedia

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budg...e_United_States

Edited November 26, 2006 by Gorgon

[Surreptishus]

CIA says around 4% for defence.

Edited November 26, 2006 by Surreptishus