NationStates

Milks Empire wrote:

ArghNeedAName wrote: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...

Where can I meet the king of Iceland, Switzerland or Finland?

Milks Empire wrote:

ArghNeedAName wrote: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...

Hmm? I count 7:

Norway
Denmark
Sweden
New Zealand
Australia
Canada
Netherlands

Volnotova wrote:

Milks Empire wrote:Notice that eight of the top ten are constitutional monarchies. Hmm...

Where can I meet the king of Iceland, Switzerland or Finland?

Seven. Which leaves the question as to which one I misread.

Can someone tell me why Iran was listed so low? At least they have a sham of a crappy flawed democracy.

Milks Empire wrote:

Volnotova wrote:Where can I meet the king of Iceland, Switzerland or Finland?

Seven. Which leaves the question as to which one I misread.

Could have been more then 1.

You might have thought Iceland and Finland were con monarchies while New Zealand was not.

(Hehe)

Mike the Progressive wrote:

Jinos wrote:
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.

What will of the majority? Most people don't even vote. The most public election in America, the vote for the president, only got 60-70% of eligible voters to actually cast a ballot, and that was considered a year of "high voter turnout"

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?

Because the system of gerrymandering and corporate money has created a political machine that supports a status quo which disregards the will and the needs of the many to accommodate the greed of a few.

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.

Quality media is one of the evaluative standard's that determines if our government is ruled by a popular sovereignty.

The system having restrictions isn't anti-democratic, if people wanted a 3rd party enough, they could have won.

This is fundamentally untrue. The mechanics of elections in America prevent third parties from becoming government. Third parties can compete in European parliamentary systems because seats are distributed by voter percentage. In an American winner takes ALL system, third parties are unable to compete, the barriers for entry prevent them from doing so.

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.

This isn't about the few overcoming the majority. This is about a system which forces the majority to select from only a few.

Lol, Russia.
No matter how much of an asshole you are, Putin, you're still sexy.

ArghNeedAName wrote:The Economist Intelligence Unit does an annual assessment of how democratic countries are. It sorts them into four categories: full democracy, flawed democracy, hybrid regime and authoritarian regime.

Top 10 most authoritarian countries:

1. Erm, I forgot?
2. Chad
3. Turkmenistan
4. Uzbekistan
5. Burma
6. Equitorial Guinea
7. Saudi Arabia
8. Central African Republic
9. Iran
10. Syria

Assuming that the first one is North Korea that means that Chad, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan all came ahead of Congo and Zimbabwe on the authoritarian scale. Remind me again, why are we taking the Economist seriously?

Of course you're welcome to assume that the first one is Congo or Zimbabwe, but that would still mean that two out of the three countries, Congo, Zimbabwe, North Korea are less authoritarian than Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Chad, which is bullshit.

Shofercia wrote:

ArghNeedAName wrote:The Economist Intelligence Unit does an annual assessment of how democratic countries are. It sorts them into four categories: full democracy, flawed democracy, hybrid regime and authoritarian regime.

Top 10 most authoritarian countries:

1. Erm, I forgot?
2. Chad
3. Turkmenistan
4. Uzbekistan
5. Burma
6. Equitorial Guinea
7. Saudi Arabia
8. Central African Republic
9. Iran
10. Syria

Assuming that the first one is North Korea that means that Chad, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan all came ahead of Congo and Zimbabwe on the authoritarian scale. Remind me again, why are we taking the Economist seriously?

Of course you're welcome to assume that the first one is Congo or Zimbabwe, but that would still mean that two out of the three countries, Congo, Zimbabwe, North Korea are less authoritarian than Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Chad, which is bullshit.

Fail. That list is in DESCENDING order of authoritarianism; e.g. the #1 country would be the most authoritarian of them all, and the #10 country would be the least authoritarian of them all.

Kalaspia-Shimarata wrote: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!

Do explain why Australia is not that high on the democracy index.

Wait, this is you - it's because Gillard is still in government. Clearly, after the 2010 elections produced a hung parliament, she should have stood back and crowned Tony "The Mad Monk" Abbott the eternal Prime Minister of Australia, as is the natural, biological right of every leader of the Liberal Party. Then we'd be a democracy.

Also, I wasn't aware that ballot-box stuffing, murder of opposition figures, government-sponsored propaganda supporting the incumbent party and systematic hindrance of opposition parties by official State security agencies were the hallmarks of democracy. Silly me.

New Chalcedon wrote:

Kalaspia-Shimarata wrote: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!

Do explain why Australia is not that high on the democracy index.

Wait, this is you - it's because Gillard is still in government. Clearly, after the 2010 elections produced a hung parliament, she should have stood back and crowned Tony "The Mad Monk" Abbott the eternal Prime Minister of Australia, as is the natural, biological right of every leader of the Liberal Party. Then we'd be a democracy.

Remember, NC- Even if you win the popular vote and control the most seats, you're still not elected unless you gain the support of the person that matters most: an angry teenager from Sydney.

Meowfoundland wrote:

New Chalcedon wrote:
Do explain why Australia is not that high on the democracy index.

Wait, this is you - it's because Gillard is still in government. Clearly, after the 2010 elections produced a hung parliament, she should have stood back and crowned Tony "The Mad Monk" Abbott the eternal Prime Minister of Australia, as is the natural, biological right of every leader of the Liberal Party. Then we'd be a democracy.

Remember, NC- Even if you win the popular vote and control the most seats, you're still not elected unless you gain the support of the person that matters most: an angry teenager from Sydney.

Also this part is funny:

Russia IS deomocratic

What the hell is "deomocratic"? A country run by demons?

Well, I suppose you could find a couple people who think Russia IS run by demons...

Who makes the democracy index ...the UN which is controlled by US of course they are going to make russia look bad

Greater Mackonia wrote:Who makes the democracy index ...the UN which is controlled by US of course they are going to make russia look bad

No. The Economist, a private British newspaper, makes the Democracy Index. And, pray tell, if the UN is controlled by the US, how the hell would they let China and Russia keep their veto powers (IE, "we don't like this resolution so it's dead and you can't do shit")?

Allrule wrote:

Shofercia wrote:
Assuming that the first one is North Korea that means that Chad, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan all came ahead of Congo and Zimbabwe on the authoritarian scale. Remind me again, why are we taking the Economist seriously?

Of course you're welcome to assume that the first one is Congo or Zimbabwe, but that would still mean that two out of the three countries, Congo, Zimbabwe, North Korea are less authoritarian than Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Chad, which is bullshit.

Fail. That list is in DESCENDING order of authoritarianism; e.g. the #1 country would be the most authoritarian of them all, and the #10 country would be the least authoritarian of them all.

Ok, but that wasn't actually my point. Another strawman, well done. Lemme explain what I said:

9, out of the top 10 listed, did NOT include North Korea, Congo or Zimbabwe. This means that the top 10 worst dictatorships, according to the Economist, do NOT include two out of three, for the 10 most authoritarian regimes:

North Korea
Congo
Zimbabwe

However, the list INCLUDES Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Chad, for the 10 most authoritarian regimes. This means that, according to the Economist, two out of the following three, i.e. North Korea and Congo, Congo and Zimbabwe, or North Korea and Zimbabwe, are actually less authoritarian, than either Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan or Chad.

Now, Allrule, can you please tell me what that has to do with whether the order is descending or ascending? Or will you admit to yet another failed strawman?

Milks Empire wrote:

ArghNeedAName wrote: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...

Ehm, no. Iceland, Switzerland and Finland are republics. It's just 7 constitutional monarchies.

Risottia wrote:

Milks Empire wrote:Notice that eight of the top ten are constitutional monarchies. Hmm...

Ehm, no. Iceland, Switzerland and Finland are republics. It's just 7 constitutional monarchies.

You're several hours late for that.

Milks Empire wrote:

Risottia wrote:
Ehm, no. Iceland, Switzerland and Finland are republics. It's just 7 constitutional monarchies.

You're several hours late for that.

I noticed and was going to delete that post, but couldn't because you had already replied to that.
You couldn't wait three seconds more, could you.

ArghNeedAName wrote:[*]To my knowledge, only three Muslim-majority nations are classified as democratic: Indonesia (60th), Mali (62nd) and Malaysia (=71st). Turkey, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Iraq and a few others are hybrids.

Oh my beloved country is the most democratic country within the Muslim world. I'm so proud of that.

The other Islamic countries, especially the Islamic countries across the Middle East, have to follow our cause.

And I hope that our government could improve its democracy by eliminating corruptions across the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

The Economist.

Heh.

Shofercia wrote:Remind me again, why are we taking the Economist seriously?

I honestly don't know why anyone with a proper, inquisitive mind would take that rag seriously.

Herskerstad wrote: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.

Why? It's not like the opposition is unified. If they had been, they would have formed the government.

So... what makes this funny?

Regardless, other informed posters here have made the claim that Norway isn't a free country, so the Democracy index must be mistaken.

Shofercia wrote: This means that, according to the Economist, two out of the following three, i.e. North Korea and Congo, Congo and Zimbabwe, or North Korea and Zimbabwe, are actually less authoritarian, than either Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan or Chad.

Now, Allrule, can you please tell me what that has to do with whether the order is descending or ascending? Or will you admit to yet another failed strawman?

Sometimes the fact that its research comes up with counter-intuitive results is why the paper is actually good, conventional wisdom is not always correct. Just because a few of the results are counter to your own preconceived notions does NOT make the index rubbish, perhaps it is in fact your own preconceptions which are crap? Also, this is NOT simply a ranking based on one subjective view by one journalist at the paper, according to The Economist they're based on a survey of 60 questions handed out to different experts for each country as well as from public surveys. The survey is the same for each country. Furthermore, since this is strictly a measure of democratic freedom, not of the overall quality of living (economic standard of living is not included in the survey), it is not a broad measure of quality of life or standard of living, only political freedom.

Potarius wrote:

Shofercia wrote:Remind me again, why are we taking the Economist seriously?

I honestly don't know why anyone with a proper, inquisitive mind would take that rag seriously.

Maybe you can show how this index is flawed?

Gravlen wrote:

Potarius wrote:
I honestly don't know why anyone with a proper, inquisitive mind would take that rag seriously.

Maybe you can show how this index is flawed?

I'm not saying it's flawed. I'm just saying I don't take their magazine seriously.