3 ms·

Democratic regression measured by the methodology of one NGO - the Freedom House and the Economist. Their methodologies do not have ground truth - so like schoo

Democratic regression measured by the methodology of one NGO - the Freedom House and the Economist. Their methodologies do not have ground truth - so like school rankings they are completely made up. I can have a measurement, equally plausible to many, that democracy has gone up. These are also left-leaning organizations and there facts almost always target countries with governments of the opposite ideological bent - "And then are the states that remain democratic but have been deteriorating in quality, including the world’s four largest democracies – the United States, India, Indonesia, and Brazil – and the largest democracy in Central and Eastern Europe, Poland. 12 In 2019, India suffered one of the steepest declines on the 100-point Freedom House scale (4 points). Since 2012, India has declined by 5 points, Indonesia by 7, Brazil by 6, Poland 9, and the U.S. 7 points." There is no scientific basis to assert that Freedom has actually gone down in these countries. Just like more coverage of murders and crime on the evening news makes us think that crime has gone up, greater coverage of so-called illiberal events makes us think that democracy is in danger. Lacking data, I would go with the earlier in the graph of Democracy trending up and not down (null hypothesis).

AftHurrahWinch 6y ago
You're not disagreeing with the conclusion, you're disagreeing with the premise. If someone accepts the premise then they should also accept the conclusion. Personally, I agree with the Freedom House and the Economist hallmarks of democracy. Therefore, the conclusion is significant to me.
pierrebai 6y ago
Quote: > In fact, 2006 was the high water mark for democracy in the world, with the percentage of democracies peaking that year at 57% among states over one million population (Figure 1), and 61% of all states. 9 Since then the proportion of democracies in the world has gradually declined, to 55% of all states and 48% of states above one million population. So you are in opposition to even the simplest provable fact provided in the article. And you wish to replace a statistic you don't approve of with... made up measurement? You then bring up that somehow, measurement of liberties would have a scientific basis? Liberties are not a physical quantities. They choose indicators and measured them. You chose to no indicators and simply stated your political bias. I will choose to appreciate the more rigorous of the two.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

AftHurrahWinch 6y ago

You're not disagreeing with the conclusion, you're disagreeing with the premise. If someone accepts the premise then they should also accept the conclusion. Personally, I agree with the Freedom House and the Economist hallmarks of democracy. Therefore, the conclusion is significant to me.

pierrebai 6y ago

Quote: > In fact, 2006 was the high water mark for democracy in the world, with the percentage of democracies peaking that year at 57% among states over one million population (Figure 1), and 61% of all states. 9 Since then the proportion of democracies in the world has gradually declined, to 55% of all states and 48% of states above one million population. So you are in opposition to even the simplest provable fact provided in the article. And you wish to replace a statistic you don't approve of with... made up measurement? You then bring up that somehow, measurement of liberties would have a scientific basis? Liberties are not a physical quantities. They choose indicators and measured them. You chose to no indicators and simply stated your political bias. I will choose to appreciate the more rigorous of the two.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]