People vote freely for a party/person = Democracy.. and that is regardless if a country is a parliamentary democracy, republic or whatever.
I did not say India didn't have any form of democracy. I only noted that it is not as democratic.
And like I said no it is not. Turn-out is a very clear indicator of how the people perceive their democracy. Democracies where there is low turn-out, people dont think their vote matters and hence dont turn up to vote.
That is not a decent analysis at all. Here is a survey on the matter of voter turnout:
Who Votes, Who Doesn't, and Why: Summary of Findings - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
I think you will find by looking at that what is the more likely explanation for the lack of voter turnout.
Yes and India have other issues than say Denmark or other well defined democracies with many parties. India have a caste system which impacts its political system big time. 3rd world parliamentary democracies have histories of instability and other issues. I am talking about democracies in Europe vs US, that are well defined and have had successful elections for many many decades.
"Other issues" are exactly what I am talking about. Having many political parties is not as significant as you believe.
LOL what the hell are you smoking? The system of gerrymandering is ripe in the US.. look at Texas.. hell look at most states. You have whole districts designed to elect black people and people from certain parties. There is next to no gerrymandering in most European countries lol. There are set rules on how to make the political districts and they do NOT include favouring a political party or racial make up. We use things like geography and most important.. population density.
I actually clearly stated that different methods are available to achieve similar or better results in terms of controlling who gets into power and who doesn't.
LOL okay show me. Give us examples. Show me where an election in Europe was decided by the court system.
To be fair the instance you are referring to was nothing more than a decision regarding a recount in Florida. It might have had the effect of deciding the election, but you are distorting a legitimate legal case regarding a central issue of democracy to suggest something other than the reality.
What I was referring to is not some spurious claim of courts "deciding elections" but explicitly outlawing or restricting political parties.
Yes, in Spain Batasuna is banned because they support ETA a terrorist organisation. That is the only one I can thinking off hand, do you know of any more? Considering we allow parties like the BNP then well..
The BNP was not banned, but a number of restrictions were imposed on it meant to weaken it politically.
Now it is "everything" instead of nothing? You changing your stance dude.
Uh, no, you are are changing my words. I did not say it is everything nor did I say it is nothing. I said it means very little.
yea, when was that.. oh yea the late 1960s when all black people got the right to vote for real. Or did you forget that dirty bit of history?
Is someone from Spain really criticizing the state of my country in the 1960's? :doh However, I think I should just note here that black people did have the right to vote well before the 1960's. I grant that between the Reconstruction Era and Civil Rights Movement a number of Southern states sought to diminish the ability of blacks to vote, but that did not deny them that right even in those states, let alone in other states.
You cant compare India and the US and you know it. India has other issues that are very unique to India (caste system), but like it or not, on the basic democratic level of having a political system with parties and people voting for said parties and politician's, there is very little basic difference between India, the US or say Denmark. Only in India and Denmark they can count.
For one, India's issues are much complicated than that. For another, there is a huge difference between these countries when it comes to democracy. Having elections and parties does not define democracy and it is not all that is required to have a democracy. Also it does not reflect on how democratic a system is in reality. Being more or less democratic depends on more than just having political parties and elections.
And yes what you just said is a load of American right wing bs crap .. you sir are the one that has been brainwashed.
What I am saying is not right wing or the result of brainwashing. I am not saying such rights should be restricted only that such rights being legally respected does not mean a country has more political freedom as a fascist government would have compelling reasons to allow hedonism.
Your comments have zero to do with the reality of the political situation in Europe anno 2010.
I can understand why it might be hard to see what it has to do with the present situation. There are probably few people who would even notice what I like to call the weasel clause, I also call it the fascist clause, in the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
What is your direct experience of European political cultures btw?
I wouldn't expect you to come to the U.S. in order to criticize it so I trust you won't expect the same from me. Certainly plenty of people criticize countries they have never visited, but that does not mean their criticism is not legitimate.
In what way are they not sovereign? As you can see in current events, a state such as France can completely ignore the opinions of the EU with impunity. To what extent do you believe a US state could ignore federal opinion in this way?
I am not sure you are talking about with current events, but in fact U.S. states can and have ignored federal opinion and not just in the more radical ways. Also, I noted many of those states are sovereign in a sense, just not independent. California is a sovereign state, it is just not an independent state. I guess the confusion is understandable since nearly all of Europe's states are unitary in nature rather than federalist.
