Democracy Index 2011 (Russia now rated 'authoritarian')

[Cosmopoles]

Oh, I agree with you on that point. You're right, you're not engaging in a debate. Unfortunately that doesn't prevent you from responding.

If you prefer, I could start ignoring this rather pointless little section of your posts.

Except we were arguing over whether or not the elections manifest the People's Will, so I thought we were arguing over the most important elections.

I suppose we should really look at both types, shouldn't we? I'm pretty sure we're allowed to.

Life isn't fair. The voting age population in Mali was, at least, 6 million in 2007; but wait! We don't want to exclude those living abroad, and voting in Mali's election, which gives Mali a voting age population of roughly 8.2 million. Currently, 4,400,000 Malians are living in other countries.

Sauce: http://www.migrationinformation.org/Fea ... cfm?id=247

And they vote. And out of those living abroad, the voting population is 2.2 million. So the total voting population, assuming that only half of Malians are of total voting population, is 8.2 million. Out of those, only 2.5 million voted.

Since you're so keen on voting age population, we have 2.5 million, out of 8.2 million voting: that's a turnout of 30%. Dear Cosmopoles, 30% isn't 50%. It really, really isn't.

Why on earth would you consider all emigrants a part of the voting age population? How many are seasonal or temporary migrants already counted as part of Mali's population? How many of those 4.4m have no intention of ever returning to Mali and as such have little interest in the internal politics? How many are citizens of the nations they have moved to and are quite happily voting in elections there?

So you can't actually respond to the point I made. Ok thanks for clarifying.

I did - would you like me to repeat my response?

That's not the case in the US, or in Russia, or in France, unless you want to tell me that Sarkozy's power is purely ceremonial.

Sure, but they aren't a majority.

When you're talking about reflecting the people's will, you go for the most important elections, not the ones that have the lowest turnout. Do you even have numbers for the Mali Legislative Elections, in terms of people voting?

It was 2m.

Facts are those things that you can present without spinning. Where did I say that no one gives a shit about Swiss elections? Obviously the people running give a shit. My direct quote was:

Switzerland is a Confederacy. In a Confederacy, people generally don't give a shit about the national government, since it has so little power.

You spun that to me saying "no one gives a shit". Again, spin artist, stop trying to put words into my mouth.

Indeed you did. Thanks for pointing out to me that you were talking utter rubbish in a completely different way from how I said you were talking rubbish.

This isn't particularly on topic but I'd just like to applaud Cosmopoles for his current role as some kind of quasi-omniscient deity of patience, happy to throw ever more information into a yawning void.

Thank you. This is why I do it, really - I don't expect the void to benefit from the information, but if other's do then its all worthwhile.

[Chinese Regions]

Is North Korea meant the be the number one least democratic country?

[Chinese Regions]

Is North Korea meant the be the number one least democratic country?

Comfirmed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

[Gigaverse]

Yay! And two hundred years later, Vietnam would officially become a full democracy!!! Yay!!!

[Chinese Regions]

This is stuffed up!
Russia IS deomocratic, Australia is NOT that high on the democracy index and there is no way in hell North Korea is 1.8/10 when the lowest is 1 and the highest is 10 and there is no way that the US can rank so high.


This is not a list of democracy, this is a list of UN puppets!

No 0 is the lowest and North Korea is 1.08, it is completely obvious that North Korea is the least democratic country

[Chinese Regions]

Besides, Russia is at the top of where authoritarian starts on the list, just a 0.01 less than Madagascar.

[Shofercia]

This isn't particularly on topic but I'd just like to applaud Cosmopoles for his current role as some kind of quasi-omniscient deity of patience, happy to throw ever more information into a yawning void.

This isn't particularly on topic, but I'd just like to point out that an atheist talking about a quasi-omniscient deity, is rather hilarious.

Oh, I agree with you on that point. You're right, you're not engaging in a debate. Unfortunately that doesn't prevent you from responding.

If you prefer, I could start ignoring this rather pointless little section of your posts.

I'd prefer for your posts to have common sense, but we don't always get what we prefer.

Except we were arguing over whether or not the elections manifest the People's Will, so I thought we were arguing over the most important elections.

I suppose we should really look at both types, shouldn't we? I'm pretty sure we're allowed to.

Just cause we're allowed to, doesn't mean we should. I'm allowed to go to Vegas, and run up $100,000 in gambling debt, but that doesn't mean I should. When talking about the People's Will, one looks to elections that the people care about the most. That's also known as common sense.

Life isn't fair. The voting age population in Mali was, at least, 6 million in 2007; but wait! We don't want to exclude those living abroad, and voting in Mali's election, which gives Mali a voting age population of roughly 8.2 million. Currently, 4,400,000 Malians are living in other countries.

Sauce: http://www.migrationinformation.org/Fea ... cfm?id=247

And they vote. And out of those living abroad, the voting population is 2.2 million. So the total voting population, assuming that only half of Malians are of total voting population, is 8.2 million. Out of those, only 2.5 million voted.

Since you're so keen on voting age population, we have 2.5 million, out of 8.2 million voting: that's a turnout of 30%. Dear Cosmopoles, 30% isn't 50%. It really, really isn't.

Why on earth would you consider all emigrants a part of the voting age population? How many are seasonal or temporary migrants already counted as part of Mali's population? How many of those 4.4m have no intention of ever returning to Mali and as such have little interest in the internal politics? How many are citizens of the nations they have moved to and are quite happily voting in elections there?

Because Mali has electoral laws which encourage its citizens, who live abroad, to vote. If a citizen of Mali registers to vote, moves to another country, but remains a citizen of Mali, and can still vote, his registration's still valid, especially if he keeps up with Malian politics. Why are you arguing that his registration is any less valid, than someone who registered, but never bothered to check any political news? If you'd bother to actually study how elections in Mali work, you'd know that they encourage those living abroad to vote, more so than most other countries. Perhaps that's the Will of the Malian People, which you really ought to respect.

So you can't actually respond to the point I made. Ok thanks for clarifying.

I did - would you like me to repeat my response?

No, I'd like you to actually respond to the question that I was asking, not play a broken record. The question: Isn't it completely hypocritical of you to first claim that the Will of the People was represented in Mali's elections, (even though only a sixth of them voted,) then calling the elected president a liar, and then claim that the will of the Mali people wasn't to elect a liar? Please respond with something other than "politicians get elected and they lie".

That's not the case in the US, or in Russia, or in France, unless you want to tell me that Sarkozy's power is purely ceremonial.

Sure, but they aren't a majority.

And that makes them irrelevant?

When you're talking about reflecting the people's will, you go for the most important elections, not the ones that have the lowest turnout. Do you even have numbers for the Mali Legislative Elections, in terms of people voting?

It was 2m.

Sauce?

Facts are those things that you can present without spinning. Where did I say that no one gives a shit about Swiss elections? Obviously the people running give a shit. My direct quote was:



You spun that to me saying "no one gives a shit". Again, spin artist, stop trying to put words into my mouth.

Indeed you did. Thanks for pointing out to me that you were talking utter rubbish in a completely different way from how I said you were talking rubbish.

Wow, that's one epic reading comprehension fail. You turned me saying that Switzerland's a Confederacy, and that generally, in Confederacies people don't care about national elections, into me saying that Politicians don't give a shit about the office that they're running for. And if you think I'm talking utter rubbish, why are you responding to the particular quote containing the alleged "rubbish"? Do you think Generalites are too stupid to figure out something that's "utter rubbish"? Perhaps because it's not rubbish, and all you can do is name calling?

Saying that Switzerland's a Confederacy, is an actual fact. Saying that people, in general, don't care about national governments in Confederacies, is now "utter rubbish"? Lolwut. Perhaps you should look up the definition of a Confederacy.

[Cosmopoles]

This isn't particularly on topic, but I'd just like to point out that an atheist talking about a quasi-omniscient deity, is rather hilarious.

I'm just that good.

Just cause we're allowed to, doesn't mean we should. I'm allowed to go to Vegas, and run up $100,000 in gambling debt, but that doesn't mean I should. When talking about the People's Will, one looks to elections that the people care about the most. That's also known as common sense.

Not really. In most countries, even the ones where the presidency is most powerful, both the executive and the legislature need to be democratic in order for the people's will to be poperly manifest in government.

Because Mali has electoral laws which encourage its citizens, who live abroad, to vote. If a citizen of Mali registers to vote, moves to another country, but remains a citizen of Mali, and can still vote, his registration's still valid, especially if he keeps up with Malian politics. Why are you arguing that his registration is any less valid, than someone who registered, but never bothered to check any political news? If you'd bother to actually study how elections in Mali work, you'd know that they encourage those living abroad to vote, more so than most other countries. Perhaps that's the Will of the Malian People, which you really ought to respect.

Just because they are being encouraged to vote doesn't mean that their vote is necessary for the election to be democratic. As I said, you don't know how many of these migrants will never return to Mali, how many of them are citizens of their new countries and only vote there. And given that those figures include temporary and seasonal migrants, you don't even know how many of them are included in the figures for the population of Mali - you could be doublecounting millions.

If you want to count the people who live aborad but still participate (or are likely to participate) but are no longer counted as part of Mali's population, go find out how many that is. Don't just take the number of migrants and slap that on top of the total population.

No, I'd like you to actually respond to the question that I was asking, not play a broken record. The question: Isn't it completely hypocritical of you to first claim that the Will of the People was represented in Mali's elections, (even though only a sixth of them voted,) then calling the elected president a liar, and then claim that the will of the Mali people wasn't to elect a liar? Please respond with something other than "politicians get elected and they lie".

No. This happens all the time across the world. Barack Obama promised to close Guantanamo Bay and he hasn't - is the Will of the People now not reflected in US Presidential elections, because - horror of horrors - a politician said one thing and did something else?

And that makes them irrelevant?

No, it makes them not a majority.

Sauce?

Data source, page 175

6267363 registered voters * 32.19% registered voter turnout = a little over 2m.

Wow, that's one epic reading comprehension fail. You turned me saying that Switzerland's a Confederacy, and that generally, in Confederacies people don't care about national elections, into me saying that Politicians don't give a shit about the office that they're running for. And if you think I'm talking utter rubbish, why are you responding to the particular quote containing the alleged "rubbish"? Do you think Generalites are too stupid to figure out something that's "utter rubbish"? Perhaps because it's not rubbish, and all you can do is name calling?

Saying that Switzerland's a Confederacy, is an actual fact. Saying that people, in general, don't care about national governments in Confederacies, is now "utter rubbish"? Lolwut. Perhaps you should look up the definition of a Confederacy.

So tell me then, what do people in confederacies care about?

[Red zephie]

So tell me then, what do people in confederacies care about?

keeping their

slaves

[Shofercia]

Just cause we're allowed to, doesn't mean we should. I'm allowed to go to Vegas, and run up $100,000 in gambling debt, but that doesn't mean I should. When talking about the People's Will, one looks to elections that the people care about the most. That's also known as common sense.

Not really. In most countries, even the ones where the presidency is most powerful, both the executive and the legislature need to be democratic in order for the people's will to be poperly manifest in government.

But free will = free choice, and the American People, in general, opt not to manifest their will in Midterm Elections, as massively as Americans do in the Executive elections. So if you're counting how active Americans are at voting, the four year election cycle is the best barometer. If country A holds congressional elections every 2 years, and general elections every 4 years, which, BTW, include congressional elections, and country B holds an election every 5 years, it would make more sense to compare the general election of country A, to the general election of country B, instead of comparing the midterm election of country A, to the general election of country B.

No, I'd like you to actually respond to the question that I was asking, not play a broken record. The question: Isn't it completely hypocritical of you to first claim that the Will of the People was represented in Mali's elections, (even though only a sixth of them voted,) then calling the elected president a liar, and then claim that the will of the Mali people wasn't to elect a liar? Please respond with something other than "politicians get elected and they lie".

No. This happens all the time across the world. Barack Obama promised to close Guantanamo Bay and he hasn't - is the Will of the People now not reflected in US Presidential elections, because - horror of horrors - a politician said one thing and did something else?

In that case, I'd just come out and say that in terms of Gitmo, the Will of the American People wasn't manifested. I wouldn't play chicken and go "well, golly gee, politicians lie, o horror of horrors".

And that makes them irrelevant?

No, it makes them not a majority.

Funny thing, when talking about the majority of the People's Will, I tend to count the people, and not the governments. I know, I know, amazing concept.

Sauce?

Data source, page 175

6267363 registered voters * 32.19% registered voter turnout = a little over 2m.

Wow, that's a valid source, well done

But you're only talking about the first round, not the second:

In all, 33 per cent of the 6.2 million registered voters turned out for the first round, held on 1 July, while turnout was even lower in the second round held on 22 July (reportedly between 10 and 12 per cent).

The article says what I've been saying all this time:

The observers from the West African Economic and Monetary Union (UEMOA)...regretted the low turnout

And that's my point - it's hard to have actual democracy, and high turnout of genuine voters, when a third of your country's illeterate. However, with a literacy rate of 66%, like Egypt has, it's much easier to have a high voter turnout. In the past election, 59% of Egyptians voted. The more literate a country is, the more likely it is for people of that country to vote, provided everything else is equal. Unfortunately, the Economist's Dumbocracy Index treats all literacy rates below 70% as the same exact thing, which is a mistake.

Wow, that's one epic reading comprehension fail. You turned me saying that Switzerland's a Confederacy, and that generally, in Confederacies people don't care about national elections, into me saying that Politicians don't give a shit about the office that they're running for. And if you think I'm talking utter rubbish, why are you responding to the particular quote containing the alleged "rubbish"? Do you think Generalites are too stupid to figure out something that's "utter rubbish"? Perhaps because it's not rubbish, and all you can do is name calling?

Saying that Switzerland's a Confederacy, is an actual fact. Saying that people, in general, don't care about national governments in Confederacies, is now "utter rubbish"? Lolwut. Perhaps you should look up the definition of a Confederacy.

So tell me then, what do people in confederacies care about?

Citizens of the Swiss Confederacy care when important issues, for the Swiss, are at stake, I'll let Wikidorkia explain:

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

Switzerland's voting system is unique among modern democratic nations in that Switzerland practices direct democracy (also called half-direct democracy), in which any citizen may challenge any law at any time. In addition, in most cantons all votes are cast using paper ballots that are manually counted.

Approximately four times a year, voting occurs over various issues; these include both Referendums, where policies are directly voted on by people, and elections, where the populace votes for officials. These votes take place during the weekend. Federal, cantonal and municipal issues are polled simultaneously, and the majority of people cast their votes by mail.

Only 25% to 45% of all eligible citizens typically cast their votes, but controversial proposals (such as EU membership or abolishing the army) have seen voter turnouts of about 60%.

Four times a year, YIKES! No wonder they have a lower turnout than most democracies. However, when issues, which are important to the Swiss people, are at stake, the voter turnout is rather high.

For instance, in terms of Switzerland's Ascension to the Shengen Agreement, the turnout was 55.9%.

The June 2005 Swiss referendum took place on 5 June 2005 with two questions on the ballot. One question was on whether Switzerland should accede to the Schengen Agreement and become part of the Schengen Area. The other question was to decide if registered partnerships for same-sex couples should be introduced. Both questions were approved in the referendum. Turnout, at 55.9% of voters, was about 10% higher than usual in Swiss referendums.

The ban on Minarets had a 55% turnout.

If you're talking about the Confederate States of America, Zephie highlighted one of the issues.

So tell me then, what do people in confederacies care about?

keeping their

slaves

Confederacies are rather unique, moreso than most other government types, and must be studied on an individual basis.

[Cosmopoles]

But free will = free choice, and the American People, in general, opt not to manifest their will in Midterm Elections, as massively as Americans do in the Executive elections. So if you're counting how active Americans are at voting, the four year election cycle is the best barometer. If country A holds congressional elections every 2 years, and general elections every 4 years, which, BTW, include congressional elections, and country B holds an election every 5 years, it would make more sense to compare the general election of country A, to the general election of country B, instead of comparing the midterm election of country A, to the general election of country B.

Great, if I ever compare a midterm election to a general election I'll keep this in mind.

In that case, I'd just come out and say that in terms of Gitmo, the Will of the American People wasn't manifested. I wouldn't play chicken and go "well, golly gee, politicians lie, o horror of horrors".

So how is this any different from Mali?

Funny thing, when talking about the majority of the People's Will, I tend to count the people, and not the governments. I know, I know, amazing concept.

No, you said a majority of countries.

Wow, that's a valid source, well done

But you're only talking about the first round, not the second:

In all, 33 per cent of the 6.2 million registered voters turned out for the first round, held on 1 July, while turnout was even lower in the second round held on 22 July (reportedly between 10 and 12 per cent).

Actually that quote of 10 to 12% turnout should refer to specific constituencies, with turnout in other constituencies higher. The first round turnout was over 33% - I believe that 32% is the average across both rounds.

The article says what I've been saying all this time:

The observers from the West African Economic and Monetary Union (UEMOA)...regretted the low turnout

And that's my point - it's hard to have actual democracy, and high turnout of genuine voters, when a third of your country's illeterate. However, with a literacy rate of 66%, like Egypt has, it's much easier to have a high voter turnout. In the past election, 59% of Egyptians voted. The more literate a country is, the more likely it is for people of that country to vote, provided everything else is equal. Unfortunately, the Economist's Dumbocracy Index treats all literacy rates below 70% as the same exact thing, which is a mistake.

And yet countries like Benin with only 33% literacy achieve turnouts of 55-65% in democratic elections. Literacy has a weak correlation with turnout. Plenty of literate countries have low turnout while turnout among illiterate countries varies widely.

I hate to break it to you, but there's more to life than voting. There's this thing called "spending time with your family and friends." I know, probably a foreign concept to some.

I meant in terms of politics.

To be quite honest, the Swiss care when important issues, for the Swiss, are at stake, I'll let Wikidorkia explain:

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

Switzerland's voting system is unique among modern democratic nations in that Switzerland practices direct democracy (also called half-direct democracy), in which any citizen may challenge any law at any time. In addition, in most cantons all votes are cast using paper ballots that are manually counted.

Approximately four times a year, voting occurs over various issues; these include both Referendums, where policies are directly voted on by people, and elections, where the populace votes for officials. These votes take place during the weekend. Federal, cantonal and municipal issues are polled simultaneously, and the majority of people cast their votes by mail.

Only 25% to 45% of all eligible citizens typically cast their votes, but controversial proposals (such as EU membership or abolishing the army) have seen voter turnouts of about 60%.

Four times a year, YIKES! No wonder they have a lower turnout than most democracies. However, when issues, which are important to the Swiss people, are at stake, the voter turnout is rather high.

For instance, in terms of Switzerland's Ascension to the Shengen Agreement, the turnout was 55.9%.

The June 2005 Swiss referendum took place on 5 June 2005 with two questions on the ballot. One question was on whether Switzerland should accede to the Schengen Agreement and become part of the Schengen Area. The other question was to decide if registered partnerships for same-sex couples should be introduced. Both questions were approved in the referendum. Turnout, at 55.9% of voters, was about 10% higher than usual in Swiss referendums.

The ban on Minarets had a 55% turnout.

So basically, turnout at Swiss referendums is usually lower than at Swiss federal elections, except that once in a blue moon they have a referendum with an extra 10% turnout.

What the Swiss supposedly 'generally give a shit about' is approximately one or two laws every five years or so. How exactly is this better than Mali?

[Shofercia]

But free will = free choice, and the American People, in general, opt not to manifest their will in Midterm Elections, as massively as Americans do in the Executive elections. So if you're counting how active Americans are at voting, the four year election cycle is the best barometer. If country A holds congressional elections every 2 years, and general elections every 4 years, which, BTW, include congressional elections, and country B holds an election every 5 years, it would make more sense to compare the general election of country A, to the general election of country B, instead of comparing the midterm election of country A, to the general election of country B.

Great, if I ever compare a midterm election to a general election I'll keep this in mind.

Oh, so you mean you never compared a US midterm election to a Mali general election? Not even here?

The elections that I was referring to were the most recent elections in all those countries - so no, I'm not choosing the one's which were lowest, I'm choosing the most relevant. Those mose recent elections were the 2010 US legislative election, the French 2007 legislative election and the 2008 Korean legislative election. At each of these, turnout among voting age population was around 40% - similar to Mali's most recent legislative election.

Mali general election in 2007 - once every 5 years. US midterm election of 2010 - once every 2 years. Ya know, if you want to argue against yourself, I could just step aside

In that case, I'd just come out and say that in terms of Gitmo, the Will of the American People wasn't manifested. I wouldn't play chicken and go "well, golly gee, politicians lie, o horror of horrors".

So how is this any different from Mali?

Because the president of Mali, when you called him a liar, was commenting on voter registration, which is part of running the election. What's this thread about? Oh yeah, elections. Gitmo's different, as that's more in the realm of foreign policy.

I hate to break it to you, but there's more to life than voting. There's this thing called "spending time with your family and friends." I know, probably a foreign concept to some.

I meant in terms of politics.

I initially placed that there as a joke. Realizing that you won't get the joke, I removed it, 25 minutes before your current post. Looks like I was right about your missing the joke, taking everything I say as an ebul argument out to destroy your "superb" posts.

To be quite honest, the Swiss care when important issues, for the Swiss, are at stake, I'll let Wikidorkia explain:

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



Four times a year, YIKES! No wonder they have a lower turnout than most democracies. However, when issues, which are important to the Swiss people, are at stake, the voter turnout is rather high.

For instance, in terms of Switzerland's Ascension to the Shengen Agreement, the turnout was 55.9%.



The ban on Minarets had a 55% turnout.

So basically, turnout at Swiss referendums is usually lower than at Swiss federal elections, except that once in a blue moon they have a referendum with an extra 10% turnout.

What the Swiss supposedly 'generally give a shit about' is approximately one or two laws every five years or so. How exactly is this better than Mali?

Your question was "what do Confederacies care about?" I believe that I answered that question.

Switzerland votes four times in a year, according to Wikidorkia. Mali votes once every five years. If something major happens, usually once every five years, the Swiss vote in numbers. If the Swiss were forced to cram all of their referendums into five year elections, I'd expect the turnout to be much higher. But when they vote on issues like "should we raise VAT to strengthen our social safety net", every three months, well, turnout ain't going to be high for most of 'em.

Additionally, Switzerland is a confederacy, intermixed with direct democracy. That's an extremely unique system of government, that shouldn't be compared to any other system. If I knew that I can always reign in my government with a mere vote, why would I vote on every little issue?

Even so, the second round of elections in Mali, had a 32% turnout, according to your source, whereas Swiss referendums have a 45% turnout, so they're really not the same thing. When Malians are asked to vote on a second round, once in a blue moon, their participation drops. The Swiss have to vote four times a year. Geez, I wonder, are voting statistics going to be comparable, hmm, going to go with "nope".

It's hard to have actual democracy, and high turnout of genuine voters, when a third of your country's illeterate. However, with a literacy rate of 66%, like Egypt has, it's much easier to have a high voter turnout. In the past election, 59% of Egyptians voted. The more literate a country is, the more likely it is for people of that country to vote, provided everything else is equal. Unfortunately, the Economist's Dumbocracy Index treats all literacy rates below 70% as the same exact thing, which is a mistake.

And yet countries like Benin with only 33% literacy achieve turnouts of 55-65% in democratic elections. Literacy has a weak correlation with turnout. Plenty of literate countries have low turnout while turnout among illiterate countries varies widely.

You claim a "weak correlation", and I claim a normal correlation. But we both agree that there's some correlation between the two. Finally! The Economist's Dumbocracy Index believes that, if the literacy rate is below 70%, there's no correlation whatsoever. The Economist's Dumbocracy Index made a deliberate mistake. This was my main point! Shall I get the fireworks?

[Cosmopoles]

Oh, so you mean you never compared a US midterm election to a Mali general election? Not even here?

Mali doesn't have general elections. A general election in a presidential system is one where the executive and legislature are elected at the same time. While they take place in the same year in Mali, they are seperate elections occurring a few months apart.

Because the president of Mali, when you called him a liar, was commenting on voter registration, which is part of running the election. What's this thread about? Oh yeah, elections. Gitmo's different, as that's more in the realm of foreign policy.

Commenting on voter registration has bugger all to do with running an election. Its a comment, not an action. Not that the president of Mali is even responsible for running the elections.

Your question was "what do Confederacies care about?" I believe that I answered that question.

Switzerland votes four times in a year, according to Wikidorkia. Mali votes once every five years. If something major happens, usually once every five years, the Swiss vote in numbers. If the Swiss were forced to cram all of their referendums into five year elections, I'd expect the turnout to be much higher. But when they vote on issues like "should we raise VAT to strengthen our social safety net", every three months, well, turnout ain't going to be high for most of 'em.

Additionally, Switzerland is a confederacy, intermixed with direct democracy. That's an extremely unique system of government, that shouldn't be compared to any other system. If I knew that I can always reign in my government with a mere vote, why would I vote on every little issue?

The fact that Swiss turnouts are lower due to the system that they use is irrelevant. You were arguing that a nation with turnouts as low as Mali couldn't be democratic. Switzerland has turnouts as low as Mali. The fact that it has low turnouts because voters are can't be arsed going to the polls four times a year doesn't matter - the point is, they don't vote in greater numbers than they do in Mali. Is Switzerland not democratic?

Even so, the second round of elections in Mali, had a 32% turnout, according to your source, whereas Swiss referendums have a 45% turnout, so they're really not the same thing. When Malians are asked to vote on a second round, once in a blue moon, their participation drops. The Swiss have to vote four times a year. Geez, I wonder, are voting statistics going to be comparable, hmm, going to go with "nope".

Oh sweet Jesus, are you part goldfish? Do I need to explain to you the difference between turnout as a proportion of registered voters and turnout as a proportion of the voting age population again?

You claim a "weak correlation", and I claim a normal correlation. But we both agree that there's some correlation between the two. Finally! The Economist's Dumbocracy Index believes that, if the literacy rate is below 70%, there's no correlation whatsoever. The Economist's Dumbocracy Index made a deliberate mistake. This was my main point! Shall I get the fireworks?

The index isn't trying to prove or disprove a correlation between turnout and literacy. That's why turnout is included as a completely separate category in the rating.

[Daegukgi]

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

Our country is rated as 8.06 (full democracy), just below Japan which is rated as 8.08 (full democracy). But I think it is okay. The most important thing is that our people still can elect our officials and oversee them so they won't disappoint us as voters.

[Shofercia]

Oh, so you mean you never compared a US midterm election to a Mali general election? Not even here?

Mali doesn't have general elections. A general election in a presidential system is one where the executive and legislature are elected at the same time. While they take place in the same year in Mali, they are seperate elections occurring a few months apart.

Mali's elections, both legislative and presidential, are held once every 5 years. They are held slightly apart, but neither one of them is called the "midterm election". In a US general election, the people vote for president and congress, and that occurs once every four years. They also vote for the governors of their states. In a midterm election, which is called the midterm election, people only vote for congress, and possibly their state legislatures, not the governor, nor the president.

I don't know why Mali has their people for for president and legislature on different days, I think it'd be more convenient to just vote on a single day, but both, Malian presidential and legislative elections occur once in five years. American Congressional elections happen once every two years, and the midterm elections generally have a lower turnout as a result of their constant occurrence.

Every country has general elections, because they're the main elections of the country. For Mali, it's once every five years. For US, it's once every four years for the general elections, as in 2004, 2008, etc, and once every two years for midterm elections; and yes, the 2010 elections, that you compared to Mali elections, were midterm elections.

Nevertheless, this didn't prevent you from trying to compare US midterm elections, to Mali's general elections, and then going on a streak of denial, about you never doing so, even though I cited the exact quote, where you, erm, did that.

Because the president of Mali, when you called him a liar, was commenting on voter registration, which is part of running the election. What's this thread about? Oh yeah, elections. Gitmo's different, as that's more in the realm of foreign policy.

Commenting on voter registration has bugger all to do with running an election. Its a comment, not an action. Not that the president of Mali is even responsible for running the elections.

When a president makes a comment, action is likely to follow. Unless of course lobbyists and spin artists get in the way, and pervert the People's Will, in order to make a profit.

Your question was "what do Confederacies care about?" I believe that I answered that question.

Switzerland votes four times in a year, according to Wikidorkia. Mali votes once every five years. If something major happens, usually once every five years, the Swiss vote in numbers. If the Swiss were forced to cram all of their referendums into five year elections, I'd expect the turnout to be much higher. But when they vote on issues like "should we raise VAT to strengthen our social safety net", every three months, well, turnout ain't going to be high for most of 'em.

Additionally, Switzerland is a confederacy, intermixed with direct democracy. That's an extremely unique system of government, that shouldn't be compared to any other system. If I knew that I can always reign in my government with a mere vote, why would I vote on every little issue?

The fact that Swiss turnouts are lower due to the system that they use is irrelevant. You were arguing that a nation with turnouts as low as Mali couldn't be democratic. Switzerland has turnouts as low as Mali. The fact that it has low turnouts because voters are can't be arsed going to the polls four times a year doesn't matter - the point is, they don't vote in greater numbers than they do in Mali. Is Switzerland not democratic?

I was referring to turnouts in the most important elections, not just any turnouts for any elections that Cosmopoles can go off and find. If Switzerland voted once in five years, as Mali does, Switzerland would have an extremely high turnout, because there's at least one crucial issue once in every five years, if we count backwards from 2012 for a decade. In 2009, there was the minaret ban, and in 2005, the Schengen Agreement. You want to compare a nation's turnout that votes four times a year, to a nation that votes once in five years.

Oh boy, how to explain this to you. Do you like movies? Ok, here goes: If there's a great movie, and it's only out on opening night, I'd stand in line to see it. If there's the same movie, that runs for twelve days straight, I ain't seeing it on opening night. I'll go during one of the more mellow, weekday nights. You cannot compare a mellow night to an opening night. Similarly, you can't compare elections which occur every three/four months, to elections which occur once in five years. That king of logic is idiotic. Moreso than a mere goldfish.

You claim a "weak correlation", and I claim a normal correlation. But we both agree that there's some correlation between the two. Finally! The Economist's Dumbocracy Index believes that, if the literacy rate is below 70%, there's no correlation whatsoever. The Economist's Dumbocracy Index made a deliberate mistake. This was my main point! Shall I get the fireworks?

The index isn't trying to prove or disprove a correlation between turnout and literacy. That's why turnout is included as a completely separate category in the rating.

The Index, according to you, has a correlation, where countries with 99% literacy rate, get a point on the index, countries with 69% get no points, and countries with 29%, also get no points. That is incorrect. If a correlation exists between literacy and democracy, as the Economist's Dumbocracy Index most certainly implies, by scoring it, the correlation doesn't just stop at the arbitrary number of 70%. Only you Cosmopoles, can "bravely" argue, for several pages, that it's not the case. And that's why I think that your "logical" arguments are hilarious, and can be turned into wonderful comedy skits.

[Central Slavia]

This list is a parody of itself for considering USA more democratic than.. just about any country.
Even Slovakia seems more democratic than USA , because we aren't practically restricted to only two parties due to an idiotic system of elections, meaning newcomers can appear in the system instead of the alternation between bad and worse USA seems to show.

[Cosmopoles]

Mali's elections, both legislative and presidential, are held once every 5 years. They are held slightly apart, but neither one of them is called the "midterm election". In a US general election, the people vote for president and congress, and that occurs once every four years. They also vote for the governors of their states. In a midterm election, which is called the midterm election, people only vote for congress, and possibly their state legislatures, not the governor, nor the president.

I don't know why Mali has their people for for president and legislature on different days, I think it'd be more convenient to just vote on a single day, but both, Malian presidential and legislative elections occur once in five years. American Congressional elections happen once every two years, and the midterm elections generally have a lower turnout as a result of their constant occurrence.

Every country has general elections, because they're the main elections of the country. For Mali, it's once every five years. For US, it's once every four years for the general elections, as in 2004, 2008, etc, and once every two years for midterm elections; and yes, the 2010 elections, that you compared to Mali elections, were midterm elections.

Nevertheless, this didn't prevent you from trying to compare US midterm elections, to Mali's general elections, and then going on a streak of denial, about you never doing so, even though I cited the exact quote, where you, erm, did that.

Why don't you run along and learn what the words 'general election' actually mean before trying to use them?

This was a general election.
This was not a general election, its was a legislative election.

Learn the difference then come back and argue with me.

When a president makes a comment, action is likely to follow. Unless of course lobbyists and spin artists get in the way, and pervert the People's Will, in order to make a profit.

What action followed his comment?

I was referring to turnouts in the most important elections, not just any turnouts for any elections that Cosmopoles can go off and find. If Switzerland voted once in five years, as Mali does, Switzerland would have an extremely high turnout, because there's at least one crucial issue once in every five years, if we count backwards from 2012 for a decade. In 2009, there was the minaret ban, and in 2005, the Schengen Agreement. You want to compare a nation's turnout that votes four times a year, to a nation that votes once in five years.

Actually, what I was doing was comparing the turnout in both Swiss federal and regional elections - you know, the elections for the people who run the country - with turnout for Mali's five yearly legislative elections, being the people who mostly run the country. If Switzerland had legislative elections every quarter, you would have had a point. They don't. If Swiss voters can't be bothered voting in actual elections because they voted recently in a referendum then that suggests that the Swiss system is broken. The simple fact is that the people who run Switzerland were elected with the same voting age turnout as the people who run Mali. Either both are undemocratic, or neither is.

Oh boy, how to explain this to you. Do you like movies? Ok, here goes: If there's a great movie, and it's only out on opening night, I'd stand in line to see it. If there's the same movie, that runs for twelve days straight, I ain't seeing it on opening night. I'll go during one of the more mellow, weekday nights. You cannot compare a mellow night to an opening night. Similarly, you can't compare elections which occur every three/four months, to elections which occur once in five years. That king of logic is idiotic. Moreso than a mere goldfish.

That's a really awful analogy. If you turn up to a different showing, you still go to see the same film. Voting doesn't really work that way, does it? You can't say, "I'll go vote on a quieter day."

The Index, according to you, has a correlation, where countries with 99% literacy rate, get a point on the index, countries with 69% get no points, and countries with 29%, also get no points. That is incorrect. If a correlation exists between literacy and democracy, as the Economist's Dumbocracy Index most certainly implies, by scoring it, the correlation doesn't just stop at the arbitrary number of 70%. Only you Cosmopoles, can "bravely" argue, for several pages, that it's not the case. And that's why I think that your "logical" arguments are hilarious, and can be turned into wonderful comedy skits.

Actually, we were talking about correlation between turnout and literacy. If you want to talk about a correlation between literacy and democracy then the correlation is extremely weak, holding other factors constant. There are dozens of very undemocratic, very literate countries.

[Arumdaum]

South Korea's too high on that list.

[Kirrig]

I don't know if this has been pointed out before, but most of the top ten (and all of the top five) have only one house.