That is true in the US, but that is not typical. I cannot think of another democracy that is as firmly two party as the US. Even the UK which I felt was too two party has always had some smaller parties (for many decades the Liberals, and then the Lib Dems, and Northern Irish parties), many smaller ones more recently (add the Scottish and Welsh Nationalists) and with two smaller parties gaining a lot of ground in the last few years the next general election looks like a four way fight.
In many countries multiple parties and coalition governments are the norm.
That requires actual activism, getting involved in local politics, and mobilizing. All things that Americans, ironically, can't afford. So here we are, creating trillionaires instead.
The system being 2 party, 3 party or 4 party system doesn't change much though.
If you want to improve democracy you need stronger and more independent local governments and some way for people to directly vote on issues (both local and federal/country wise). Otherwise it will always be career politicians deciding on issues based on their personal interests.
Yes, you get to say what you want, but that doesn’t mean you get what you want. With millions of people all saying something different, nobody gets exactly what they want.
Issues with majority support never change in almost all of the biggest democracies in the world right now.
For the US specifically its a representative oligopoly with Madisonian gridlock and a few million non-elected bureaucrats thrown in the middle.
The US gives the smallest amount of say to people to pick either Coke or Pepsi. Don't like sugary soda and think its making you fat? Tough luck, you gotta pick Coke or Pepsi.
Switzerland is so democratic they refused to let women vote until the 1990s (in the last canton) because the voters (men) didn't allow that. It's my go-to example of how direct democracy has pitfalls too.
US is in almost no way democratic. There is not enough unity for that. The idea and reasoning behind Democracy was that a people (i.e. a demos) rules itself. But in US there is no longer one people, and it's fracturing even faster and more.
I don't think it's helpful to be flippant in this analysis. The US falls in the category of flawed democracies, together with Botswana, Indonesia, India, Mongolia, Philippines, Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, and many other countries with, shall we say, significant potential for development.
I don't think anybody who has actually lived under a pre-democratic regime would call the US "no way democratic". There are many democratic aspects of the US, and it has reasonably strong institutions. But it seems that most Americans have not yet realized what category they're in, and think that the US is some kind of front-runner.
That index confuses voting or even liberal democracy with democracy.
A multitude of different peoples voting to rule over the others is not democratic and will never be democratic. Just because the voting process is secure does not make it democratic. What makes it democratic is that a people rules themselves, nothing else.
Zulus ruling over Xhosas is not democratic just because the Zulus give the Xhosas votes because Zulus and Xhosas are two different peoples, and contrary to popular belief, soil is not magical and a Xhosa born on territory ruled by Zulus does not make him a Zulu.
Jews ruling over Palestinians is not democratic just because the Palestinians have votes because Jews and Palestinians are two different peoples, and contrary to popular belief, soil is not magical and a Palestinian born on territory ruled by Jews does not make him a Jew.
Reinventing the dictionary will only confuse you, it won't change reality. Nominalism is not only stupid, it's wrong.
There is not much example of actual democracy at scale though. Even Switzerland which is often cited as the closest form of actual democratic governance is still not ticking all of the basics of a democratic checklist.
No. The average Democracy Index of Western Europe is 8.05 (full democracy), while the US scores 7.65 (flawed democracy, trending downwards). Just below Poland, just above Botswana.
You might shrug and say "well pobody's nerfect", but the disparity between the American narrative and the reality is actually quite extreme.
You can pick which of the two possibilities, neither of which is even close to your political views, will oppress you for the next 4 years.
That is true in the US, but that is not typical. I cannot think of another democracy that is as firmly two party as the US. Even the UK which I felt was too two party has always had some smaller parties (for many decades the Liberals, and then the Lib Dems, and Northern Irish parties), many smaller ones more recently (add the Scottish and Welsh Nationalists) and with two smaller parties gaining a lot of ground in the last few years the next general election looks like a four way fight.
In many countries multiple parties and coalition governments are the norm.
To add, the multiple parties in the UK just means I have more choices that are not close to my political views!
2 replies →
The solution is ranked choice voting and getting money out of politics.
That requires actual activism, getting involved in local politics, and mobilizing. All things that Americans, ironically, can't afford. So here we are, creating trillionaires instead.
While the USA is famously a two-party system, that’s not true of every democracy.
The system being 2 party, 3 party or 4 party system doesn't change much though. If you want to improve democracy you need stronger and more independent local governments and some way for people to directly vote on issues (both local and federal/country wise). Otherwise it will always be career politicians deciding on issues based on their personal interests.
Another prediction win for the Simpson's [1].
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8hDsIoEFYw
Yes, but the other N% of the country still might vote for the government you didn't want.
You say it, but you don't always get it.
Yes, you get to say what you want, but that doesn’t mean you get what you want. With millions of people all saying something different, nobody gets exactly what they want.
There's currently no real democracy on earth.
Issues with majority support never change in almost all of the biggest democracies in the world right now.
For the US specifically its a representative oligopoly with Madisonian gridlock and a few million non-elected bureaucrats thrown in the middle.
The US gives the smallest amount of say to people to pick either Coke or Pepsi. Don't like sugary soda and think its making you fat? Tough luck, you gotta pick Coke or Pepsi.
> There's currently no real democracy on earth.
That's a claim.
Switzerland is so democratic they refused to let women vote until the 1990s (in the last canton) because the voters (men) didn't allow that. It's my go-to example of how direct democracy has pitfalls too.
So you think a country that didn't allow 50% of the population to vote was "democratic?"
1 reply →
US is in almost no way democratic. There is not enough unity for that. The idea and reasoning behind Democracy was that a people (i.e. a demos) rules itself. But in US there is no longer one people, and it's fracturing even faster and more.
I don't think it's helpful to be flippant in this analysis. The US falls in the category of flawed democracies, together with Botswana, Indonesia, India, Mongolia, Philippines, Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, and many other countries with, shall we say, significant potential for development.
I don't think anybody who has actually lived under a pre-democratic regime would call the US "no way democratic". There are many democratic aspects of the US, and it has reasonably strong institutions. But it seems that most Americans have not yet realized what category they're in, and think that the US is some kind of front-runner.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index
That index confuses voting or even liberal democracy with democracy.
A multitude of different peoples voting to rule over the others is not democratic and will never be democratic. Just because the voting process is secure does not make it democratic. What makes it democratic is that a people rules themselves, nothing else.
Zulus ruling over Xhosas is not democratic just because the Zulus give the Xhosas votes because Zulus and Xhosas are two different peoples, and contrary to popular belief, soil is not magical and a Xhosa born on territory ruled by Zulus does not make him a Zulu.
Jews ruling over Palestinians is not democratic just because the Palestinians have votes because Jews and Palestinians are two different peoples, and contrary to popular belief, soil is not magical and a Palestinian born on territory ruled by Jews does not make him a Jew.
Reinventing the dictionary will only confuse you, it won't change reality. Nominalism is not only stupid, it's wrong.
12 replies →
All the more reason to let states and local governments do more. Rather than a unitary congress or executive that only 1/2 the people (+/-) like.
The only way to fix things would be proportional representation and moving away from the two party system.
3 replies →
A lot of things are easier at the federal level.
After all the federal budget is so large because you can swap states but you can't get away from the IRS.
There is not much example of actual democracy at scale though. Even Switzerland which is often cited as the closest form of actual democratic governance is still not ticking all of the basics of a democratic checklist.
No. The average Democracy Index of Western Europe is 8.05 (full democracy), while the US scores 7.65 (flawed democracy, trending downwards). Just below Poland, just above Botswana.
You might shrug and say "well pobody's nerfect", but the disparity between the American narrative and the reality is actually quite extreme.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index
6 replies →
[flagged]