The Economist Intelligence Unit's analysis of democracies world-wide, infographic:
Democracy by region, here: [FONT="]Democracy index by country[/FONT][/COLOR][/URL]
As anyone can see, democracy in America, when inspected under a microscope is comparatively not as good as Americans like to think.
In most functional democracies on earth, it is simply the popular vote that determines the Executive. Not in America, where an archaic intermediary body (called the Electoral College) was instituted because the founding fathers thought - since most Americans could not read or write - that they could be "unduly influenced".
Moreover, few countries allow [I]unlimited financial support[/I] of candidates in a presidential election. (But ours is not the only country to all unlimited financial support and yet there is not the same consequence as in the US - see that curious outcome explained [URL="http://prospect.org/article/how-our-campaign-finance-system-compares-other-countries"]here.)
Since the start of our nation, six presidential elections (including the last one) have been won by the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College.
This is a travesty of supposedly "free elections" in a supposedly democratic nation ...
You do realize that the US is not a democracy, its a constitutional republic
The Economist Intelligence Unit's analysis of democracies world-wide, infographic:
Democracy by region, here: [FONT="]Democracy index by country[/FONT][/COLOR][/URL]
As anyone can see, democracy in America, when inspected under a microscope is comparatively not as good as Americans like to think.
In most functional democracies on earth, it is simply the popular vote that determines the Executive. Not in America, where an archaic intermediary body (called the Electoral College) was instituted because the founding fathers thought - since most Americans could not read or write - that they could be "unduly influenced".
Moreover, few countries allow [I]unlimited financial support[/I] of candidates in a presidential election. (But ours is not the only country to all unlimited financial support and yet there is not the same consequence as in the US - see that curious outcome explained [URL="http://prospect.org/article/how-our-campaign-finance-system-compares-other-countries"]here.)
Since the start of our nation, six presidential elections (including the last one) have been won by the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College.
This is a travesty of supposedly "free elections" in a supposedly democratic nation ...
Gaw the ignorance.
A constitutional republic is the American words for a representative democracy. So yes, the US is a democracy. Almost all countries that are considered democracies are representative democracies. Even the most direct democracy in the world.. Switzerland, is not really a direct democracy.
Since the start of our nation, six presidential elections (including the last one) have been won by the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College.
This is a travesty of supposedly "free elections" in a supposedly democratic nation
The Economist Intelligence Unit's analysis of democracies world-wide, infographic:
Democracy by region, here: [FONT="]Democracy index by country[/FONT][/COLOR][/URL]
As anyone can see, democracy in America, when inspected under a microscope is comparatively not as good as Americans like to think.
In most functional democracies on earth, it is simply the popular vote that determines the Executive. Not in America, where an archaic intermediary body (called the Electoral College) was instituted because the founding fathers thought - since most Americans could not read or write - that they could be "unduly influenced".
Moreover, few countries allow [I]unlimited financial support[/I] of candidates in a presidential election. (But ours is not the only country to all unlimited financial support and yet there is not the same consequence as in the US - see that curious outcome explained [URL="http://prospect.org/article/how-our-campaign-finance-system-compares-other-countries"]here.)
Since the start of our nation, six presidential elections (including the last one) have been won by the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College.
This is a travesty of supposedly "free elections" in a supposedly democratic nation ...
Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites said:By directly pitting the predictions of ideal-type theories against each other within a single statistical model (using a unique data set that includes imperfect but useful measures of the key independent variables for nearly two thousand policy issues), we have been able to produce some striking findings. One is the nearly total failure of “median voter” and other Majoritarian Electoral Democracy theories. When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.
Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites said:Just as previous literature suggests, each of three broad theoretical traditions—Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, EconomicElite Domination, and interest-group pluralism—seems to gain support. When taken separately, each independent variable—the preferences of average citizens, the preferences of economic elites, and the net alignments of organized interest groups—is strongly, positively, and quite significantly related to policy change. Little wonder that each theoretical tradition has its strong adherents.
But the picture changes markedly when all three independent variables are included in the multivariate Model 4 and are tested against each other. The estimated impact of average citizens’ preferences drops precipitously, to a non-significant, near-zero level. Clearly the median citizen or “median voter” at the heart of theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy does not do well when put up against economic elites and organized interest groups. The chief predictions of pure theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy can be decisively rejected. Not only do ordinary citizens not have uniquely substantial power over policy decisions; they have little or no independent influence on policy at all.
By contrast, economic elites are estimated to have a quite substantial, highly significant, independent impact on policy. This does not mean that theories of Economic-Elite Domination are wholly upheld, since our results indicate that individual elites must share their policy influence with organized interest groups. Still, economic elites stand out as quite influential—more so than any other set of actors studied here—in the making of U.S. public policy.
The Economist Intelligence Unit's analysis of democracies world-wide, infographic:
Democracy by region, here: [FONT="]Democracy index by country[/FONT][/COLOR][/URL]
As anyone can see, democracy in America, when inspected under a microscope is comparatively not as good as Americans like to think.
In most functional democracies on earth, it is simply the popular vote that determines the Executive. Not in America, where an archaic intermediary body (called the Electoral College) was instituted because the founding fathers thought - since most Americans could not read or write - that they could be "unduly influenced".
Moreover, few countries allow [I]unlimited financial support[/I] of candidates in a presidential election. (But ours is not the only country to all unlimited financial support and yet there is not the same consequence as in the US - see that curious outcome explained [URL="http://prospect.org/article/how-our-campaign-finance-system-compares-other-countries"]here.)
Since the start of our nation, six presidential elections (including the last one) have been won by the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College.
This is a travesty of supposedly "free elections" in a supposedly democratic nation ...
Some people will never get over the fact that Hillary isn't president.
It's actually far worse than the Economist is willing to say being as the States is a de facto plutocracy; per Princeton's Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page:
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
Some issues with this map.
1) Greenland.. that is Danish and should be coloured the same way as Denmark.
2) UK should not be in the second category since as it like the US, breaks the main rule of democracy... the guy with most votes wins. Current UK government has a majority in the legislative branch but only got 32% of the votes at the last election. On top of that, the upper house is un-elected. If it was realistic, then the UK should be in the yellowish tint area.
You do realize that the US is not a democracy, its a constitutional republic
So what? Do you think a simple popular vote is automatically the only legitimate system by which to elect your President? What is so fundamentally wrong with the EC system that renders these close-run elections worthy of comment? Do you think a pure popular vote system wouldn’t come with its own set of problems and inconsistencies?Since the start of our nation, six presidential elections (including the last one) have been won by the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College.
Yeah, right.
Send that to the Economist Intelligence Unit. See what they think of it! (Print their response here!)
Don't be bothered by the long, long wait for a response ...
NB: Any methodology, however concocted, is applied uniformly and equitably across a politically geographic selection ...
Get rid of gerrymandering, but keep the EC.
If you make elections pure popular votes, you WILL eventually end up with a revolution. The 100 people that live on 500 acres in middle America don't give a rats ass about the problems faced by the thousands of Americans who live on 500 acres in some city or other urbanized community, and vice versa. But you hand complete electoral power over to the city folk. Middle America may as well not even bother voting, at that point.
Thats the problem, how can it, when half the legislative branch in the UK is appointed, and yet the UK scores higher on the democracy scale than the US, despite the seriously flawed US system? Makes no sense.
So what? Do you think a simple popular vote is automatically the only legitimate system by which to elect your President?
That assertion doesn’t answer any of my questions though. I’m interested in why you think a national popular vote (there is a popular vote, just at the state level for the electors) would be unquestionably better, indeed unquestionably the only option.The popular vote is the fundamental basis of any democratic election, and particularly of the Executive Office.
That half (House of Lords) has no real legislative power whatsoever.
And a "Senate" exists in very few European countries, so the UK is really no different.
Problem here is that it goes both ways. The city folk dont give a rats ass about the rural folks and their problems, but it is the rural folks who sit on the power in the US and that too will eventually cause a revolution by your standards.
End of the day, nothing pisses people more off, than a minority ruling over them, and that is what is happening in the US at them moment.. but at Presidential level and House of Representative level... and that can also cause a revolution if left un-fixed.
Hence, electoral collage.
Which, without gerrymandering, would work pretty well, to balance the weight of each voice.
The Economist Intelligence Unit's analysis of democracies world-wide, infographic:
Democracy by region, here: [FONT="]Democracy index by country[/FONT][/COLOR][/URL]
As anyone can see, democracy in America, when inspected under a microscope is comparatively not as good as Americans like to think.
In most functional democracies on earth, it is simply the popular vote that determines the Executive. Not in America, where an archaic intermediary body (called the Electoral College) was instituted because the founding fathers thought - since most Americans could not read or write - that they could be "unduly influenced".
Moreover, few countries allow [I]unlimited financial support[/I] of candidates in a presidential election. (But ours is not the only country to all unlimited financial support and yet there is not the same consequence as in the US - see that curious outcome explained [URL="http://prospect.org/article/how-our-campaign-finance-system-compares-other-countries"]here.)
Since the start of our nation, six presidential elections (including the last one) have been won by the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College.
This is a travesty of supposedly "free elections" in a supposedly democratic nation ...
Ahh without gerrymandering it would work.. no it would not because it is flawed. It was designed for the 1700s and that does not only not work in the 21st century but it is not needed anymore.
The electoral system was put in place because of the vast distances back then and how slow information got around. This is not an issue today, hence the electoral college is not needed.
Look at this way... you dont have such an absurd system for House or Senate members.. but you do for the head of state? Why? Because back in the day, it was older white landowners who ran the country and they wanted a way to make sure, that they kept hold of power.. the electoral college does this. Will of the people.. my ass.. more like will of the 1%.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?