Democracy Index 2011 (Russia now rated 'authoritarian')

[Costa Fiero]

They don't control the Internet, the one main source of dissent.

They will. Hell, New Zealand is looking at passing some version of censorship laws and we're supposed to be the liberals in the Asia-Pacific.

[Soviet Canuckistan]

Where did America's 8.11 points come from?, those are North Korea's points, stop taking them America! Anyways, Canada beat America again just like the War of 1812, amount of oil and land.

[ArghNeedAName]

If you're interested to know, the three countries that overtook the United States were the United Kingdom and Uruguay.

I suspect the fact that Libya is still classified as authoritarian is mainly due to the fact that there haven't been any elections yet.

Eh, I can read it, so it's all good on that front

Why don't you help me figure out the numbers: which ones refer to slavery and rape statistics? Because, call me crazy, but I believe that I have an inherent right not to be enslaved by the government, and not to be raped by the government. So which of the numbers deal with government-assisted slave trade, and government ignored rape statistics? Here's a "fun" one on Congo: https://www.freetheslaves.net/SSLPage.aspx?pid=602

It's not just my opinion. I have friends in Uzbekistan, and I read Georgianne Nienaber's coverage on the Congo. Even solely on the political front, it ain't the same. One's much worse, and it ain't Uzbekistan. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/georgianne-nienaber

It's called the Democracy index and not the Quality of Life Index or Crime Index or Rape Index for a reason. Obviously if the government permits torture of citizens that's going to count against it, but this is most importantly about how democratic the government is and how free the citizens are.

Congo-Kinshasa did have 10 opposition candidates - most prominently Étienne Tshisekedi - run against incumbent Joseph Kabila in the election last November. Kabila won with about half the vote. It's apparent that this election was flawed. The election didn't have any observers which suggests it was probably rigged. It was also marked by violence and a logistical mess.

Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan has been in power since the country's independence. First he extended his term with a rigged referendum in 1995. In the 2000 election he won with 90% of the vote and the only opposition candidate actually admitted that he had only run for show. Again in 2007, when he was reelected with 90% of the vote, the three "opposition" candidates were all friendly with the regime. Due to term limits, he wasn't even eligible to run that time. Not to mention the fact that Karimov has in the past had political enemies boiled to death.

[Aethyopea]

Look at the way out democracy is setup. We only have two major parties, districts are setup in an often politicized process that enfranchises and disenfranchises groups loyal and disloyal to the party with power over the redistricting.

No, it should be remembered that we are not a pure democracy. Nor were we intended to be. Though democracy is the decision by the majority. It isn't an active populace, it isn't an objective news outlet or information, nor is it our politicians getting reelected; unless you are Howard Zinn. But the idea that democracy is "fair," that it is "equal" is foolish. Democracy is the rule of majority, and history has shown us the majority always manages to fuck somebody over.

It doesn't matter that our politicians are still democratically elected. The system is jury rigged to lock these people into their seats. And our media has us convinced we're still electing people who represent US.

Of course, it matters. What the hell are we even talking about if it doesn't matter that our politicians aren't democratically elected? What else is democracy but the will of the people by majority? Save your rants of discontent for elsewhere.

The only thing that I see our system doing is preventing radical shifts, and you know what? That's a good thing. Rarely do things go well when when the scene is chaotic and the system volatile. No, our system isn't perfect. But the idea that it's not democratic, why? Again, the media is the media, so what? Would you have it run by the state, who could easily influence it? I'd rather have a corporation control it rather than a bureaucrat, whose only concern is survival. But again, the media being biased as sin doesn't mean there is no democracy. The system having restrictions isn't anti-democratic, if people wanted a 3rd party enough, they could have won. There just is none that they want that much. Again, because the few can't overcome the majority, doesn't mean we aren't democratic. In fact, I'd say that is what democracy is.

Wait, I'm confus.
First you say that democracy is the rule of the majority, then you say say that democracy is actually a system where the majority can't just rule over the minority. How does that work?

[Ovisterra]

Once again backing up my hypothesis that Norway is a great place to live.

I would have put the US further down, myself.

[Voerdeland]

Neat, India's democratic.

Apparently.

More than Poland, apparently.

[ArghNeedAName]

Majority rule is necessary. Pleasing 51% and displeasing 49% is better than the over way round.

[Disserbia]

America should be much lower on that list.

Why?

The two party system

[Dukopolious]

The most Authoritarian #1 is currently North Korea, as per the Wikipedia article you linked.

[Ravineworld]

In what world is America not a police state. The communist party is banned, only two parties regularly get access to the ballots, american citizens can get thrown in jail and held indefinitely without a charge, advocating overthrow of the government makes you eligible for 20 years in prison.

[Shofercia]

If you're interested to know, the three countries that overtook the United States were the United Kingdom and Uruguay.

I suspect the fact that Libya is still classified as authoritarian is mainly due to the fact that there haven't been any elections yet.

Eh, I can read it, so it's all good on that front

Why don't you help me figure out the numbers: which ones refer to slavery and rape statistics? Because, call me crazy, but I believe that I have an inherent right not to be enslaved by the government, and not to be raped by the government. So which of the numbers deal with government-assisted slave trade, and government ignored rape statistics? Here's a "fun" one on Congo: https://www.freetheslaves.net/SSLPage.aspx?pid=602

It's not just my opinion. I have friends in Uzbekistan, and I read Georgianne Nienaber's coverage on the Congo. Even solely on the political front, it ain't the same. One's much worse, and it ain't Uzbekistan. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/georgianne-nienaber

It's called the Democracy index and not the Quality of Life Index or Crime Index or Rape Index for a reason. Obviously if the government permits torture of citizens that's going to count against it, but this is most importantly about how democratic the government is and how free the citizens are.

Congo-Kinshasa did have 10 opposition candidates - most prominently Étienne Tshisekedi - run against incumbent Joseph Kabila in the election last November. Kabila won with about half the vote. It's apparent that this election was flawed. The election didn't have any observers which suggests it was probably rigged. It was also marked by violence and a logistical mess.

Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan has been in power since the country's independence. First he extended his term with a rigged referendum in 1995. In the 2000 election he won with 90% of the vote and the only opposition candidate actually admitted that he had only run for show. Again in 2007, when he was reelected with 90% of the vote, the three "opposition" candidates were all friendly with the regime. Due to term limits, he wasn't even eligible to run that time. Not to mention the fact that Karimov has in the past had political enemies boiled to death.

Didn't realize that UK and Uruguay count as three countries

On a more serious note, in a Democracy, ideally, you're not supposed to, ya know, enslave people, cause slaves can't vote, and you're supposed to allow anyone who wants to register to vote, to register to vote, and that's a tad hard if one is a slave. And since freedom of the citizens is the most important thing, why not take slavery into account? A slave isn't free, last time I checked. So if we are talking about freedom, let's see statistics on how each state fights slavery.

[Allrule]

In what world is America not a police state. The communist party is banned, only two parties regularly get access to the ballots, american citizens can get thrown in jail and held indefinitely without a charge, advocating overthrow of the government makes you eligible for 20 years in prison.

Oh boy.

[*]CPUSA isn't banned.
[*]A lot more parties- the Greens, the Libertarians, the Constitution, et al- get access to the ballots regularly.
[*]No objections on the indefinite detention thing, though you need a lot more than that to make a police state.
[*][citation needed] on "advocating overthrow of govt. gets you 20 years in prison", thank you.

My guess is you're some whiny 13-year old who's just discovered communism and feels the need to attack the ebil amerikkkan state at every damn opportunity.

[Sremski okrug]

Russia authoritarian?

I'm fairly certain I remember Russia having parliamentary elections a while ago. Elections in which the ruling party lost it's constitutional majority and had to surrender several key committees to the control of various opposition parties and lost their majority in several other committees as well I am fairly certain that an authoritarian regime does not do that. It's most likely the results of several failings within United Russia and it's policies.

Although defeating a party like the Communist Party, one that openly supports Stalin and calls for Russia to undergo a transformation to be more like the Soviet Union under his control considering the extreme hatred of Stalin especially in areas that suffered most under his crappy rule like Chechnya. I also believe one of the leaders of the other main opposition party called for the Antarctic to be nuked so the resulting tide of water would flood Europe. I myself would not vote such an unstable person in power, the activist that seemed to of gained popularity that was rallying against corruption also called to "cut the bastards head off" and is extremely nationalistic so it's a tad awkward to follow his other anti-corruption beliefs.

[Shofercia]

Russia authoritarian?

I'm fairly certain I remember Russia having parliamentary elections a while ago. Elections in which the ruling party lost it's constitutional majority and had to surrender several key committees to the control of various opposition parties and lost their majority in several other committees as well I am fairly certain that an authoritarian regime does not do that. It's most likely the results of several failings within United Russia and it's policies.

Although defeating a party like the Communist Party, one that openly supports Stalin and calls for Russia to undergo a transformation to be more like the Soviet Union under his control considering the extreme hatred of Stalin especially in areas that suffered most under his crappy rule like Chechnya. I also believe one of the leaders of the other main opposition party called for the Antarctic to be nuked so the resulting tide of water would flood Europe. I myself would not vote such an unstable person in power, the activist that seemed to of gained popularity that was rallying against corruption also called to "cut the bastards head off" and is extremely nationalistic so it's a tad awkward to follow his other anti-corruption beliefs.

Don't ya know Sremski, authoritarian countries now give up key committee seats to opposition parties, and kick out roughly a third to half of their delegates for underperformance. It's the new trend, calling authoritarianism by sharing. Didn't you get the memo?

[Ifreann]

If you're interested to know, the three countries that overtook the United States were the United Kingdom and Uruguay.

I suspect the fact that Libya is still classified as authoritarian is mainly due to the fact that there haven't been any elections yet.

It's called the Democracy index and not the Quality of Life Index or Crime Index or Rape Index for a reason. Obviously if the government permits torture of citizens that's going to count against it, but this is most importantly about how democratic the government is and how free the citizens are.

Congo-Kinshasa did have 10 opposition candidates - most prominently Étienne Tshisekedi - run against incumbent Joseph Kabila in the election last November. Kabila won with about half the vote. It's apparent that this election was flawed. The election didn't have any observers which suggests it was probably rigged. It was also marked by violence and a logistical mess.

Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan has been in power since the country's independence. First he extended his term with a rigged referendum in 1995. In the 2000 election he won with 90% of the vote and the only opposition candidate actually admitted that he had only run for show. Again in 2007, when he was reelected with 90% of the vote, the three "opposition" candidates were all friendly with the regime. Due to term limits, he wasn't even eligible to run that time. Not to mention the fact that Karimov has in the past had political enemies boiled to death.

Didn't realize that UK and Uruguay count as three countries

On a more serious note, in a Democracy, ideally, you're not supposed to, ya know, enslave people, cause slaves can't vote, and you're supposed to allow anyone who wants to register to vote, to register to vote, and that's a tad hard if one is a slave. And since freedom of the citizens is the most important thing, why not take slavery into account? A slave isn't free, last time I checked. So if we are talking about freedom, let's see statistics on how each state fights slavery.

We're not talking about freedom, we're talking about democracy. The hint is in the title.

[Milks Empire]

Russia authoritarian?
I'm fairly certain I remember Russia having parliamentary elections a while ago. Elections in which the ruling party lost it's constitutional majority and had to surrender several key committees to the control of various opposition parties and lost their majority in several other committees as well I am fairly certain that an authoritarian regime does not do that. It's most likely the results of several failings within United Russia and it's policies.
Although defeating a party like the Communist Party, one that openly supports Stalin and calls for Russia to undergo a transformation to be more like the Soviet Union under his control considering the extreme hatred of Stalin especially in areas that suffered most under his crappy rule like Chechnya. I also believe one of the leaders of the other main opposition party called for the Antarctic to be nuked so the resulting tide of water would flood Europe. I myself would not vote such an unstable person in power, the activist that seemed to of gained popularity that was rallying against corruption also called to "cut the bastards head off" and is extremely nationalistic so it's a tad awkward to follow his other anti-corruption beliefs.

Don't ya know Sremski, authoritarian countries now give up key committee seats to opposition parties, and kick out roughly a third to half of their delegates for underperformance. It's the new trend, calling authoritarianism by sharing. Didn't you get the memo?

Methinks you should stop puppetwanking. Not sure if it's actionable, but it's exceedingly bad form.

[Allrule]

Don't ya know Sremski, authoritarian countries now give up key committee seats to opposition parties, and kick out roughly a third to half of their delegates for underperformance. It's the new trend, calling authoritarianism by sharing. Didn't you get the memo?

Methinks you should stop puppetwanking. Not sure if it's actionable, but it's exceedingly bad form.

I don't think Sremski and Shof are the same person. Sremski in the Libya thread was generally supportive of the NTC (partly because he had a Libyan friend allied with the NTC), but Shof was... far less so.

[Milks Empire]

Methinks you should stop puppetwanking. Not sure if it's actionable, but it's exceedingly bad form.

I don't think Sremski and Shof are the same person. Sremski in the Libya thread was generally supportive of the NTC (partly because he had a Libyan friend allied with the NTC), but Shof was... far less so.

Check Sremski's sig.

[Costa Fiero]

Methinks you should stop puppetwanking. Not sure if it's actionable, but it's exceedingly bad form.

Don't feed the troll.

[Sremski okrug]

In what world is America not a police state. The communist party is banned, only two parties regularly get access to the ballots, american citizens can get thrown in jail and held indefinitely without a charge, advocating overthrow of the government makes you eligible for 20 years in prison.

Oh boy.

[*]CPUSA isn't banned.
[*]A lot more parties- the Greens, the Libertarians, the Constitution, et al- get access to the ballots regularly.
[*]No objections on the indefinite detention thing, though you need a lot more than that to make a police state.
[*][citation needed] on "advocating overthrow of govt. gets you 20 years in prison", thank you.

My guess is you're some whiny 13-year old who's just discovered communism and feels the need to attack the ebil amerikkkan state at every damn opportunity.

Whilst the person you quoted is an idiot he did touch upon a point.

Although various political parties are active in the United States how many of them actually have a chance of electing a senator let alone a President? Of these parties how many are recognised by the mainstream media? In the United Kingdom you have various political parties that have chances of winning electoral seats. You have UKIP, SNP, Green, DUP, Plaid Cymru, and the Alliance party to vote for if you don't agree with the policies of the three main political parties.

[Allrule]

I don't think Sremski and Shof are the same person. Sremski in the Libya thread was generally supportive of the NTC (partly because he had a Libyan friend allied with the NTC), but Shof was... far less so.

Check Sremski's sig.

I think that's a joke...

[Shofercia]

Didn't realize that UK and Uruguay count as three countries

On a more serious note, in a Democracy, ideally, you're not supposed to, ya know, enslave people, cause slaves can't vote, and you're supposed to allow anyone who wants to register to vote, to register to vote, and that's a tad hard if one is a slave. And since freedom of the citizens is the most important thing, why not take slavery into account? A slave isn't free, last time I checked. So if we are talking about freedom, let's see statistics on how each state fights slavery.

We're not talking about freedom, we're talking about democracy. The hint is in the title.

So the freedom to vote, (which is denied to slaves,) isn't part of Democracy?

Don't ya know Sremski, authoritarian countries now give up key committee seats to opposition parties, and kick out roughly a third to half of their delegates for underperformance. It's the new trend, calling authoritarianism by sharing. Didn't you get the memo?

Methinks you should stop puppetwanking. Not sure if it's actionable, but it's exceedingly bad form.

I think you should report it! Puppet-wanking ought to be illegal! Besides, we're both just puppets of Ana Ivanovic

Methinks you should stop puppetwanking. Not sure if it's actionable, but it's exceedingly bad form.

Don't feed the troll.

Hey there cutiepants

[Ifreann]

We're not talking about freedom, we're talking about democracy. The hint is in the title.

So the freedom to vote, (which is denied to slaves,) isn't part of Democracy?

Do look again at Hydes' post. Note there are scores for political participation and civil liberties. It follows that countries denying slaves suffrage would score poorly on those fronts.

[Shofercia]

So the freedom to vote, (which is denied to slaves,) isn't part of Democracy?

Do look again at Hydes' post. Note there are scores for political participation and civil liberties. It follows that countries denying slaves suffrage would score poorly on those fronts.

Then why's Mugabe scoring higher in those categories than Uzbekistan? Can I see how those numbers came to be?

[ArghNeedAName]

Do look again at Hydes' post. Note there are scores for political participation and civil liberties. It follows that countries denying slaves suffrage would score poorly on those fronts.

Then why's Mugabe scoring higher in those categories than Uzbekistan? Can I see how those numbers came to be?

It is possible that Zimbabwe is slightly higher up because Mugabe is in a power sharing agreement with Morgan Tsvaringai, the opposition leader. It's a bit of a lopsided power-sharing because Mugabe continues to arrest and harrass political opponents.