Democracy

You live in a democratic country, right Jow Forums?

Attached: Democracy-map-2018-website.gif (734x417, 37K)

Other urls found in this thread:

eiu.com/topic/democracy-index
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

eiu.com/topic/democracy-index

Full democracy

no

We live in a society

>Nordcucks
>Full democracy
>Get TRUCK'D
>complain
>jailed

Chad is too chad for democracy

Attached: Capture.png (1107x744, 46K)

According to this, no

Can't wait to see me going to red because the WRONG GUY won the democratic election.

whaa flawed with nippons democacy?

Attached: Chad_sat.jpg (750x1000, 298K)

Japan is a de-facto one party state ruled by the LDP.

>Syria
Wish we could turn back time, to the good old days...

Attached: 1546179731838.png (707x1000, 665K)

Democracy is a fucking joke and the average person is a complete idiot who should have no say in how anything is run

Democracy is a false god.

I don't know how it is elsewhere but Americans are brainwashed into thinking democracy is a basic human right and anything else is communism/fascism

MONARCHY WHEN
MONARCHY WHEN
MONARCHY WHEN

Attached: mc.png (466x434, 177K)

Quintessential American post.

Democratic republics are the superior system of democracy

>have to register to see the full report
fuck you

Attached: rankings.jpg (1396x1283, 204K)

t.gamer

Attached: 1546837690404.png (786x792, 460K)

If the government is good, no one's cares about freedom to choose. We had once a badass polymath emperor. Now we have at best a army captain as president. We had literally autistic and a illiterate corrupt not too long ago.

He's right though.

Spain? Full democracy?
We have a president no one voted for

It's been over 4 months since the Swedish general election and they still haven't been able to form a new government. Full democracies were a mistake.

please leave my country

It's called the right to self determination. If you don't like having rights you are welcome go move somewhere that doesn't respect them, like China.

so youre either a regime or a full democracy? really gets those neurons firing

Attached: 1542695799525.jpg (965x1000, 110K)

Can i cum to your country and fug your boipussi? :3

>USA
>democracy
ah yes, that democracy where popular vote doesn't really means anything
good guys lost in 2000

Democracy is demoanarchy. Have you ever read Plato or Aristotle? Both hated democracy.

And how the fuck is this calculated?
All the good goys that suck nwo globalist cock get full marks

Australia where we literally have a unelected prime minister,where we can't get through one election cycle without the party over throwing the leader is more democratic than the USA
The economist is a fucking JOKE

I'll take 20 consecutive terms of Trump before I let some aristocracy take away my vote.

Do you not understand how fatuous the concept of electing a "leader" each four years is; a demagogue that owes you nothing, just wants your vote, and at the end of four years, will not be responsible for his blunders (contrast that with the fact that monarch heads have rolled because they did poorly--they're accountable their entire lives) is? Separation of Church and State is another mistake that led to the sexual revolution and atheism.

>monarkids
No sweetie

Attached: image.jpg (356x450, 21K)

Map is bullshit
Brazil is the most democratic country in the world. We have both commies and facists running on elections, we respect plurality of opinion more than any country.

Democracy is pure shit, i'm fucking tired of all the intelectuals here larping with 'muh democracy'

It is absolutely shit if you are a democracy heaven but the people elect literal pieces of shit, i prefer to live under a authoritarian state that does the things good rather than a beautiful democracy with a failed-state and society.

t.full-democracy

Time for some reality check

Attached: 1547080395085.png (734x417, 154K)

Plato doubted democracy because Athens lost a war against Sparta while he was writing. More importantly than that, Athenian democracy shares almost nothing with modern democracy apart from the name

You don't vote for PM over here. Electing the prime minister has always been the job of whichever party forms government.

Athenian democracy amounted to all the free male citizens meeting to vote and debate on policy, women, slaves, and non-citizens were not a part of it.

They also didn't have elected positions. Anyone with the vote could just walk into the senate and start making speeches about what the city should do next. Naturally, this system was frequently and heavily exploited by sophists which is part of the reason they lost to the Spartans.

Which is another reason Australia is a joke democracy

>You live in a democratic country, right Jow Forums?
Yup, even semi direct democratic.

Did you know, that in all of human history no two liberal democracies have ever gone to war with each other?
Now compare that record to that of the monarchs and dictators who eventually gave us WW1.

In what sense? There's never been a single victim to Muslim terrorism in Norway which he implies is a common occurrence. The incarceration rate is 10 times lower than that of the US and the Norwegian police had an average of 0.6 hate speech cases (214 in total) to deal with per day in 2017. The number of people that have actually been jailed for hate speech in the past five years can be counted on two hands. Americans are arrested/jailed for the same offenses through ethnic intimidation laws.

What is it about the Westminster system that makes us a joke?

Indeed. If anything, the world has gotten much more peaceful post-Cold War with more democracies and fewer dictatorships. Aside from the Middle East, pretty much every region of the globe is freer, more prosperous, and more peaceful than it was in the 1970s.

Venezuela is starting to annoy me

>leftist countries are more democratic than right wing ones

Daily reminder to thank the CIA for keeping latam mostly green

Winner takes it all is ineed a bit odd for a pluralistic democracy. We have a council type government with 7 equal ministers from different parties, it makes more sense than an elected quasi-king.

>Democracy = freedom
I will never forgive Americans for spreading this fucking meme. Democracy is slavery, fuck off.

Attached: 1735bca593acaddcef3aae8ff9b63295--good-ideas-liberty.jpg (489x296, 22K)

>ruins the worlds most prosperous country with his operetta dictatorship
>muh fuck democracy , strong man so good!

Argentina's decline happened because they built their economy on feeding the British Empire. When the British Empire died, so did they.

Not really, they still feed the world with their wheat. A lingering conflict between immensely rich ground owners and the large majority of the civil society and a short stint into first socialismo southy style and later military dictatorship CIA style got them where they are now.

Argentina's exports are mostly to Third World countries since the Anglosphere and Europe have little use for their principal exports (meat, grain, and automobiles).

It's not winner takes all, we have a preferential voting system and the government is only a government so long as it controls a majority of seats in the lower house. You can look at our current government for an example of what happens when that is no longer the case.

Yes, not a real problem there, Egyptians pay the same price on the world market, and they need to eat every day. Argentines export and agricultural focus is not what made them poor, on the contrary.

In your system, either one side rules and the other side is in opposition, or the other way round. In our system the 4 major parties hold the seven seats, 85% of parliament has a seat in government and the other 15% are some fringe parties that don't matter anyways. So things get a lot less partisan and a lot more collaborative, as it should be in a democracy.

As a side effect The government never really changes but just gets adjusted to parliament elections results if needed be or ministers retire after decades of holding office. The current Swiss government is in office and without a majority change for a 170 years now.

Democracy and freedom are not one in the same. A free society is unlikely to exist in the absence of democracy, but democracy alone does not guarantee a free society, and depending on the mood of the people can lead to a very unfree one should the electorate choose to vote authoritarian candidates into power (like in Sweden where the country is run by nanny staters).

America has more freedoms in spite of having (according to this image anyway) a worse democracy thanks to its constitution limiting the powers of democratically elected officials.

>(like in Sweden where the country is run by nanny staters).
Actually, that goes for here too, but we aren't Scandis so it didn't make sense to use the UK as an example.

>In your system, either one side rules and the other side is in opposition
This is a common misunderstanding, while the party with the most seats does indeed get to form government they don't "rule" in any sense of the word. Anyone who is a member of parliament, in either house may propose legislation, but the only people who do so regularly are the government since they usually hold a majority.
Actually passing legislation is a whole other kettle of fish as it must be approved by both houses of parliament and having a party score a clear majority in bottle senate AND the house of reps is very rare. As a result of this, the only legislation that passes is the stuff that multiple parties and/or independents agree on, which means the crossbench (MP's not aligned with either major party) hold the balance of power in most governments.

Your nanny state is fucked though and you need to do something about it fast because it's beginning to spread over here.

you really don't understand our government if you think its a joke, its one of the best systems in the world with run-off voting and proportional representation in the senate
voting for the PM directly doesn't provide any advantage, the cabinet is generating all the policies for their various areas anyway

>top countries are all constitutional monarchies

really makes you think

Attached: 1523508101774.png (840x1114, 697K)

Mate, you have one single party taking up all seats in the executive. The fact that you got a multi party legislative like most normal people doesn't change that.

its more to do with the parliamentary system than the monarchy, France and USA didn't adopt parliamentary they went with their own inferior presidential system and every country they had power over adopted the presidential style as well

>but democracy alone does not guarantee a free society, and depending on the mood of the people can lead to a very unfree one should the electorate choose to vote authoritarian candidates into power

Also of course Hitler was elected as chancellor, he didn't seize power in a coup. That happened because of the fatal design flaws of the Weimar Constitution.

>top countries are all constitutional monarchies
come again?

>France and USA didn't adopt parliamentary they went with their own inferior presidential system
How's it inferior?

Because it is basically just an elect king, natural for states that did not know anything else, but inferior to more advanced democracies with consensus type governments.

That would really apply to France more than the US because the French president has near-dictatorial powers.

Executive power is held by the Governor General, who answers directly to HM Queen Elizabeth II. None of the parties or MP'S can pass anything into law by themselves.

The US has indeed more checks and balances than France does, yet it is still a presidential system with one (1) very powerful man at the helm. George Mason, one of your founding father came up with the council type government, but the US didn't pick up on it.

The Governor General is just a figurehead, true executive power rests with the Prime minister and his government. Hey I'm not saying your are the Soviet Union or something, just saying that Westminster type democracy is rather partisan for a pluralistic democracy.

Godwin's Law invoked. Thread over.

>The US has indeed more checks and balances than France does, yet it is still a presidential system with one (1) very powerful man at the helm
Still, a president can only be in office 8 years and is balanced out by the other two branches of government.

>2019
>knowing Godwin's Law
How old are you exactly, and what do you do on a godforsaken board like this?

The Gauchos of Central America. We are not like the other CA countries, we are a European county. Please tell me I am white.

Pic: Average CR girls.

Attached: The_Forest_Magazine_-Nina-Neverland-5[1].jpg (2048x1448, 274K)

It's a start, but a single person leading a nation of 300 millions is suboptimal state of affairs given democracies goals.

29 and what does that have to do with anything?

how exactly are either costa rica or uruguay more democratic than the us?

I think it was something about how GL was an ancient rule from the Usenet days of how "The longer a thread goes on, the greater the odds of Hitler or Nazism being brought up gets."

yes

There's so much Hitlerposting and stupidity on Jow Forums nowadays that somebody knowing and invoking Godwin's law reminded me of a better but distant past, back when the internet was reserved for the smart.

The US is a federal system, it was always intended to be somewhat decentralized and as it goes, pre-20th century presidents wielded less overall power than modern ones.

>Spain more democratic than Belgium
What

No need to Gerrymander and such?

>Hey I'm not saying your are the Soviet Union or something, just saying that Westminster type democracy is rather partisan for a pluralistic democracy.
That's fair enough, but I maintain that our system is superior do to the flexibility. Our government has had 6 leadership changes in 20 years yet remains fully functional. I personally consider this indicative of a more stable democracy than one that has had the same party in power for 150 years.

The partisanship claim is spot on though, partisan bullshit is why we still have such shitty internet.

Uruguay is more democratic than the US

Take Japan. It is a de-facto one party state controlled by the LDP since WWII. That is what you'd call a less than outstanding example of democracy.

I know, and I wish we could, but the future looks bleak to me.

Problem #1 - Brexit has taken centre stage in the political discourse here right now and in any election taking place before we're 100% out it will be the main factor influencing which party people vote for. Even after Brexit, I can see leftover bitterness effecting people's choices for years to come.

Problem #2 - We're essentially a two party state, and both main parties are statist to the core. Whether you vote Tory or Labour, it won't change anything.

Then you have the third party, the LibDems, who Brits often point to when trying to refute claims that we're a two party state. While their name makes them sound like they might be the solution to our problems, a closer look at their policies and history leads you to realise that they're not. They're liberals in the modern sense and their chief concern isn't equality of opportunity (i.e. actual liberalism), but equality of outcome (i.e. progressivism). As you can see by their long-term stance on the European Union (even before Brexit, they were very pro-EU, wanting us to integrate more deeply into it and even join the Euro), they don't really give a shit about small government, liberty, sovereignty, freedom and other classic liberal ideas. They're basically just Labour-lite, which should come as no surprise since the party descends from the Social Democratic Party (itself an off-shoot of the Labour party) and is even led by a former member of that party (who was also a former Labour party member before he joined it).

There really is no feasible choice for anyone here who wants to roll back the nanny state and reduce government interference in people's lives.

Someone who has the whole report, please post what it says about Slovakia.

>Problem #2 - We're essentially a two party state, and both main parties are statist to the core
You brought this on yourselves with nationalized industry post-WWII. It had an extremely toxic effect on British entrepreneurship and work ethics and people became far more statist than they'd been before.

now look within those liberal democracies and start counting their problems

directly electing a single person to be head of state and head of government is inferior to electing a party majority to form the head of government with the head of state being a separate entity
the head of government in the presidential system doesn't need a house majority so if he loses it there is no way for him to pass legislation because the house will block it, and the house can't pass legislation because the head of government will block it, a deadlock that has no way to be solved until one side backs down
this can't happen in the parliamentary system because the head of government rules due to his majority, if he loses majority then hes no longer the head of government by design
also, if the head of state/government has a house majority he can pass whatever he wants with no way to remove him until the next election unless his own party decides to step in which is very unlikely
in the parliamentary system the head of state can dissolve parliament forcing a reelection at any time they choose, that is their only political power (the queen is an exception, but the head of state is the governor general in australia)

We didn't have the same party in power for 150 years, we have 4 different parties that hold power and majorities changed over time, but the majority never changed at one single point in time.
Also, with a council there is at least one politician that represents his segment of society and voters and thus empowering them. No mater if you're a conservative farmer or a progressive city slicker or a small entrepreneur, there is at least one person in government that is on your side and can bring that viewpoint in the political process.

We are arguably more democratic since the Clinton years than we were for much of the 20th century when you had epic blowout presidential elections like 1936 or 72 or 84 and the Democrat Party had an almost unbroken control of Congress for 60 years (there were one or two moments of Republican control in the 40s-50s).

Recent presidential elections have been close affairs and Congress has changed hands on average every few election cycles since 1994.

Yes, and you?

The Founders didn't even think of political parties, they assumed the president represented the entire nation and not a party, although parties ended up forming less than a decade after the Constitution went into effect.