Democracy Index 2011 (Russia now rated 'authoritarian')

[Mike the Progressive]

No, no they shouldn't.

Yes they should...

Only if you are so out of touch with reality would you think that.

[Herskerstad]

I find it funny how Norway is the most democratic 'emphasis on the word democratic' when the alliance that came into power had less votes than the opposition.

Anyhow, the graph is interesting. And I am not too surprised to see Russia's drop on that index. You basically have two people swapping the most influential posts in that nation, while signing into legislature that allows them to stay in office for an even greater period of time.

[Kvatchdom]

Yes they should...

Only if you are so out of touch with reality would you think that.

SOPA, NDA, yadayada... Deaths of civilians in other nations caused by USA... CIA illegally assassinates Che Guevara... Yadayada.

USA Sucks, compared to the Nordic Europe and New-Zealand. Also, the amount of corporate corruption is not that good. I'm not saying that USA's undemocratic, but that it's too filled with Authoritarian neocons.

[Kalaspia-Shimarata]

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!

If it was a list of UN puppets, wouldn't Russia be higher? It is on the UNSC, after all. And believe it or not, America is democratic, and Australia will remain democratic when a government you don't like is in power.

How in the frig can you tell me Australia is democratic when an un-elected leader which everyone hates is in power after she promised there will be no carbon tax under her government when she just past a bill through the parliment making carbon tax law and noone in politics is doing, or even can do anything about her being Prime Minister?

[Mike the Progressive]

Only if you are so out of touch with reality would you think that.

SOPA, NDA, yadayada... Deaths of civilians in other nations caused by USA... CIA illegally assassinates Che Guevara... Yadayada.

USA Sucks, compared to the Nordic Europe and New-Zealand. Also, the amount of corporate corruption is not that good. I'm not saying that USA's undemocratic, but that it's too filled with Authoritarian neocons.

Whoah, whoah, whoah. Let's break that down, shall we?

iirc, SOPA has not even passed a committee in one of the houses in the bicameral congress. Second, NDA doesn't target US citizens. Third, collateral damage, though sad, in a foreign country isn't anti-democratic. Fourth, no lost there. Though again, the same for the third response. Yada, yada, yada.

And I apologize that our corporate corruption "is not that good," I'll send a memo that we need to be at least 100% more corrupt.

But Christ, really? What is this? You do understand what democracy is, right? The Democracy Index isn't your "Countries I like from best to worst" list, it's a list that analyzes voters access and restrictions, various civil liberties, and the amount of corruption in government bureaucracies. Now let me see, if I recall correctly, we aren't shooting ze gays in the streets (unless I'm mistaken?). We aren't saying "hey, women and black people, no voting for you." Nor do I think we are putting a gun to a voter's head and telling them to vote for Comrade Obama.

Now if you don't like how federalism works, okay. If you don't like how districts are drawn, fine. Or if you hate America's ebvil Satanic foreign policy run by Hitlerites, alright. You have the right to be as coo-coo for coco puffs as you want. But that doesn't mean the US isn't a fucking democracy where freedom doesn't exist. So why don't you calm the fuck down and stop mixing up democracy with everything you think a country should be, eh.

[Volnotova]

Russia democratic?

US free and not authoritarian?



I ask you, can you do anything you want in the US? No, you can't.

And democratic? Yea right, because the politicians in Washington clearly represent the social, economic, religious, racial and political make up of the American people.



And assuming that the US somehow is not authoritarian, guess the senate, house, supreme court among others never really had any authority in the first place.



As usually the democracy score of US allies, puppets and vassals extends into the upper stratosphere, while on the other hand, anything that doesn't happen to be a crony of the bureaucratic management in Washington is labelled as a diabolical totalitarian dictatorial police state.

[Farnhamia]

If it was a list of UN puppets, wouldn't Russia be higher? It is on the UNSC, after all. And believe it or not, America is democratic, and Australia will remain democratic when a government you don't like is in power.

How in the frig can you tell me Australia is democratic when an un-elected leader which everyone hates is in power after she promised there will be no carbon tax under her government when she just past a bill through the parliment making carbon tax law and noone in politics is doing, or even can do anything about her being Prime Minister?

How is Gillard "un-elected"? And "everyone" hates her? Everyone? Oooh, she broke a campaign promise, hang the bitch! She can be removed as Prime Minister at the next election. You really don't want mob rule choosing your leaders. You want a nice, orderly process and if you are that opposed to Gillard, I suggest you work for her opponents and send her packing.

[Allrule]

Russia democratic?

And we take a face plant right out of the gate. That's not what the study said.

US free and not authoritarian?



I ask you, can you do anything you want in the US? No, you can't.

Freedom is not anarchy.

And democratic? Yea right, because the politicians in Washington clearly represent the social, economic, religious, racial and political make up of the American people.

Because elected representatives are supposed to represent every damn ethnic/social/economic/religious/whatever group in the US, clearly.

And assuming that the US somehow is not authoritarian, guess the senate, house, supreme court among others never really had any authority in the first place.

What? Now you're not making sense. I defer to my "Freedom is not anarchy" statement above.

As usually the democracy score of US allies, puppets and vassals extends into the upper stratosphere, while on the other hand, anything that doesn't happen to be a crony of the bureaucratic management in Washington is labelled as a diabolical totalitarian dictatorial police state.

Yes, because obviously North Korea is a free democratic people's worker's state of the masses and the UBER EBIL IMPERIALISTS just brainwash their populace into thinking it's not.

BTW, Libya under the NTC (which is MUCH more friendly to Washington than Gaddafi ever was) still got ranked as an authoritarian regime. Sure, it improved, but not enough to come out of the "authoritarian regime" category.

[Costa Fiero]

Good to see we beat the Australians (again).

[Swkoll]

America should be much lower on that list.

If anything Australia should be lower. Compulsorily voting, please.

[Mike the Progressive]

I ask you, can you do anything you want in the US? No, you can't.

Derp, it's true. A chick got raped and they arrested the guy?!? So much for freedom in America! We obviously live in a totalitarian shithole run by a third-world dictator known as Obama Big Brother Dickhead.

And democratic? Yea right, because the politicians in Washington clearly represent the social, economic, religious, racial and political make up of the American people.

I know, even though democracy means rule by the majority and we the people elected our senators and representatives..by majority, that's not really democracy, it's uh...it's uh...

And assuming that the US somehow is not authoritarian, guess the senate, house, supreme court among others never really had any authority in the first place.

Yeah, I got nothing. I guess nobody deserves to have authority? Anarchy in the UK, er US?

As usually the democracy score of US allies, puppets and vassals extends into the upper stratosphere, while on the other hand, anything that doesn't happen to be a crony of the bureaucratic management in Washington is labelled as a diabolical totalitarian dictatorial police state.

Ok, now you're just going off the far end.

[Meowfoundland]

If it was a list of UN puppets, wouldn't Russia be higher? It is on the UNSC, after all. And believe it or not, America is democratic, and Australia will remain democratic when a government you don't like is in power.

How in the frig can you tell me Australia is democratic when an un-elected leader which everyone hates is in power after she promised there will be no carbon tax under her government when she just past a bill through the parliment making carbon tax law and noone in politics is doing, or even can do anything about her being Prime Minister?

As I said, just because a government you don't like is in power (and they were elected fairly, no matter what crap Alan Jones spews out) does not mean Australia isn't democratic. And I have to laugh at the fact you think breaking a campaign promise is a failure of democracy.

And yes, people can do things about her being Prime Minister. Labour members could vote her out à la Kevin Rudd, or you could just vote in the next election. Stop complaining about her being unelected. There are real reasons to criticise her, just not crap and lies like this.

[Swkoll]

I ask you, can you do anything you want in the US? No, you can't.

Derp, it's true. A chick got raped and they arrested the guy?!? So much for freedom in America! We obviously live in a totalitarian shithole run by a third-world dictator known as Obama Big Brother Dickhead.

And democratic? Yea right, because the politicians in Washington clearly represent the social, economic, religious, racial and political make up of the American people.

I know, even though democracy means rule by the majority and we the people elected our senators and representatives..by majority, that's not really democracy, it's uh...it's uh...

And assuming that the US somehow is not authoritarian, guess the senate, house, supreme court among others never really had any authority in the first place.

Yeah, I got nothing. I guess nobody deserves to have authority? Anarchy in the UK, er US?

As usually the democracy score of US allies, puppets and vassals extends into the upper stratosphere, while on the other hand, anything that doesn't happen to be a crony of the bureaucratic management in Washington is labelled as a diabolical totalitarian dictatorial police state.

Ok, now you're just going off the far end.

You sir, deserve a f****** medal!

[Volnotova]

Freedom is not anarchy.

Freedom doesn't have to be anarchy and anarchy doesn't have to be freedom.

But you cannot be free unless you are no longer involuntarily ruled, which is not the case in the US were many are ruled without their consent(and not, this is not about the moral nature of it or whether this is good, bad, ridiculous or not, this is about what it is, and the fact is that it is authoritarian).

Because elected representatives are supposed to represent every damn ethnic/social/economic/religious/whatever group in the US, clearly.

If they do not represent those that voted for them, then how can you call such a system democratic?

I mean, that is the entire point of the faux-democratic system right? To vote in people that are representative of the wishes, feelings, lives, interests and life styles of their voters, right?

The US is not democratic and never was, either you go around genuinely but falsely claiming that the people in the senate and the house are representative of the ethnic, religious, political, racial, social and economic make up of the American people or you are just trying to label an otherwise obvious oligarchic and aristocratic system as democratic.

;blink:
What? Now you're not making sense. I defer to my "Freedom is not anarchy" statement above.

"Quick, differ from the main subject! Drop the red herring and smear and ridicule the opposition! He may not under ANY circumstances blow our faux-democratic cover and expose our authoritarian and oli/aristocratic nature!"

Not working buddy, you may drop as many red herrings as you want, you are not going to fool anyone but the ignorant and the gullible.

Yes, because obviously North Korea is a free democratic people's worker's state of the masses and the UBER EBIL IMPERIALISTS just brainwash their populace into thinking it's not.

"SHIT SHIT SHIT! He critique is valid! Quick, stuff up that straw man in order to make our resistance appear legit and convincing!"

Because obviously that was what I was saying.

BTW, Libya under the NTC (which is MUCH more friendly to Washington than Gaddafi ever was) still got ranked as an authoritarian regime. Sure, it improved, but not enough to come out of the "authoritarian regime" category.

All states in the world are authoritarian regimes.

The difference is that some are more looked upon with favour by the US then others.

[Jinos]

As if...what? That's meaningless to determining how Democratic America is. Yeah, hip hip horah.

Except that our politicians are reelected about 90% of the time for decades, and are basically by this point nothing but supporters of a cronyist government. Money has made the individual voter's say irrelevant, and our media is all nothing but a mouthpiece for their corporate owners.

Popular Sovereignty in this country has been pretty much cowed. Gov policies don't reflect the general will of the populace. Quality information about current events in our government is not available en masse. Most people don't even participate in the political process.

So wait, let me get this straight, because voters reelect our politicians "90% of the time," that somehow makes us undemocratic? Guess what? Having an "objective" media source is not democracy. Guess what else? Having money to pay for ads in politics isn't undemocratic, either. Neither is apathy. People still elect our politicians, that's democracy. Just because you don't like the arena or the outcome doesn't mean there isn't democracy.

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.

[Volnotova]

I know, even though democracy means rule by the majority and we the people elected our senators and representatives..by majority, that's not really democracy, it's uh...it's uh...

Oli/aristocracy.

Like it used to be known as in the old days, you know, ancient Greece(and its city-states), etc.

Yeah, I got nothing. I guess nobody deserves to have authority? Anarchy in the UK, er US?

You people are so bad at dropping red herrings and stuffing strawmen, it is just humorous.

Derp, it's true. A chick got raped and they arrested the guy?!? So much for freedom in America! We obviously live in a totalitarian shithole run by a third-world dictator known as Obama Big Brother Dickhead.

Really Mike, stop trying, you're not fooling me with your red herrings and strawmen.

We both know that I wasn't advocating letting rapists and killers run free to torment innocents.

We also know that I do not believe that the US is a totalitarian shit hole run by a third-world dictator, or that it is even is totalitarian, or general shit hole.

I simply acknowledge the fact that it is authoritarian, like any state.

You know Mike? Like saying the Earth is not flat, that kind of stuff.

[Mike the Progressive]

So wait, let me get this straight, because voters reelect our politicians "90% of the time," that somehow makes us undemocratic? Guess what? Having an "objective" media source is not democracy. Guess what else? Having money to pay for ads in politics isn't undemocratic, either. Neither is apathy. People still elect our politicians, that's democracy. Just because you don't like the arena or the outcome doesn't mean there isn't democracy.

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.

[Mike the Progressive]

-snip-

Of course, though this thread is talking about democracy and how that is defined according to the DI. Not what you wish of or from the state. For that create a different thread.

[Volnotova]

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.

At least you concur that democracy generally leaves some people unsatisfied and in vain.

That said.

If democracy is not rule by the majority nor by representatives that represent that make up(be it social, political, racial, economic and/or religious) of the people that elected them, then why even use the term democracy?

If you assert democracy is simply rule by people then we might as well label North Korea as such.

Hence, even oligarchies, aristocracies, kleptocracies and etc. would end up falling into that category.

To be exact, forms of government that would not fit into that category would be theocracies, rule by AI(s), etc.

[Mike the Progressive]

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.

At least you concur that democracy generally leaves some people unsatisfied and in vain.

That said.

If democracy is not rule by the majority nor by representatives that represent that make up(be it social, political, racial, economic and/or religious) of the people that elected them, then why even use the term democracy?

If you assert democracy is simply rule by people then we might as well label North Korea as such.

Hence, even oligarchies, aristocracies, kleptocracies and etc. would end up falling into that category.

To be exact, forms of government that would not fit into that category would be theocracies, rule by AI(s), etc.

Of course, that's my point (I think I made on last year's thread about the DI in 2010). When I say democracy, I do not mean the simplistic "majority rules" definition, but what democracy has come to mean in the modern world: representative government, guaranteed and protected civil liberties, etc. As the DI rates them, as this thread is about the DI's ratings.

[Volnotova]

-snip-

Of course, though this thread is talking about democracy and how that is defined according to the DI. Not what you wish of or from the state. For that create a different thread.

"His reply embodies facts, it has managed to expose my blatant attempt at ridiculing and smearing him and showed to its readers my wide scale use of red herrings and strawmen, not only that, but I am really running out of tactics that can be used to discredit him."

Mike leans back in his seat, taking ad deep breath while glancing over the wall of text written by his political opponent projected unto his screen, taking a long pause in this challenging debate, thinking of a possible rebuttal or a way to direct the attention away from his adversary.

"Bingo! I know it! I will just falsely claim he is trying to derail the thread and then, in essence proclaim victory!"

_____________________________________________

Sorry, it didn't work.

We both know that what I wrote is relevant to the thread, just as my just claim that US is not democratic and is instead as every country in the world an authoritarian regime(something I do not find morally repugnant for your information), a assertion which is both legit and factual.

[Mike the Progressive]

Of course, though this thread is talking about democracy and how that is defined according to the DI. Not what you wish of or from the state. For that create a different thread.

We both know that what I wrote is relevant to the thread, just as my just claim that US is not democratic and is instead as every country in the world an authoritarian regime(something I do not find morally repugnant for your information), a assertion which is both legit and factual.

It's hardly relevant to this thread. By what everybody defines as democracy, the US is very much so. You're talking about something entirely different and that doesn't belong here. Again, this isn't a "What I want from a state" thread. This is simply talking about the DI's rankings, using their definition of democracy, and what do you think of the list.

Not your definition of democracy, and why every state in the world is authoritative.

[Volnotova]

At least you concur that democracy generally leaves some people unsatisfied and in vain.

That said.

If democracy is not rule by the majority nor by representatives that represent that make up(be it social, political, racial, economic and/or religious) of the people that elected them, then why even use the term democracy?

If you assert democracy is simply rule by people then we might as well label North Korea as such.

Hence, even oligarchies, aristocracies, kleptocracies and etc. would end up falling into that category.

To be exact, forms of government that would not fit into that category would be theocracies, rule by AI(s), etc.

Of course, that's my point (I think I made on last year's thread about the DI in 2010). When I say democracy, I do not mean the simplistic "majority rules" definition, but what democracy has come to mean in the modern world: representative government, guaranteed and protected civil liberties, etc. As the DI rates them, as this thread is about the DI's ratings.

Your version of "democracy" is simply rule by people.

To be exact, what you label as "democracy" is simply a fancy version of aristocracy/oligarchy.

Nor is it even representative(At least, it is not representing the make up of the countries that have such systems).

Please, just use a different word for it altogether, this is nothing like the systems that were ran in the open in the ancient Greek city states.

Instead, it is a a repugnant desecration of its original meaning.

[Volnotova]

We both know that what I wrote is relevant to the thread, just as my just claim that US is not democratic and is instead as every country in the world an authoritarian regime(something I do not find morally repugnant for your information), a assertion which is both legit and factual.

It's hardly relevant to this thread. By what everybody defines as democracy, the US is very much so. You're talking about something entirely different and that doesn't belong here.

So if all were to say "We postulate, the Earth is flat!" then all those that were to claim the opposite should just STFU and get lost?

;]

Then I ask you.

Is, according to you, the US an oligarchy/aristocracy(And don't be like a sneaky insidious politician and dodge the question)?

[Milks Empire]

Top 10 most democratic countries:

1. Norway
2. Iceland
3. Denmark
4. Sweden
5. New Zealand
6. Australia
7. Switzerland
8. Canada
9. Finland
10. Netherlands

Notice that eight of the top ten are constitutional monarchies. Hmm...