6 ms·

I think, for the sake of precision, we should just go with the percentage of the population that could vote. For dead democracies, we can reference their peak,

I think, for the sake of precision, we should just go with the percentage of the population that could vote. For dead democracies, we can reference their peak, so: Ancient Athens, 400s BC, 10% Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth, 1500s, 10% Britain mid 1700s: 8% Britain after reforms of 1832: 15% USA before 19th Amendment: 20% peak actually voted. USA after 19th Amendment: 35% And so on. The percentage is more revealing than the label.

marginalia_nu 5y ago
I think suffrage is a bit of a one-dimensional way of measuring a democracy. Athens puts all modern democracies to shame in who actually held office, and ensuring that those that did had real skin in the game. I imagine contemporary politics would look very differently if officials that fucked up risked ten years of exile by public vote.
- hulitu 5y ago
  > I imagine contemporary politics would look very differently if officials that fucked up risked ten years of exile by public vote. But would be wonderful. You will see an increase in responsability.
  - xeromal 5y ago
    Or every 4 years, we just exile the old president. lol
- toqy 5y ago
  I don't imagine exile would be as bad today as it would back then. Our national level politicians are fairly wealthy too. Getting exiled as a local level politician would be tough though.
  - earleybird 5y ago
    Assuming that would be exile relative to the jurisdiction of service - you might have to move to the next town :-)
  - marginalia_nu 5y ago
    You got to keep in mind most Athenian officials were selected via sortition (i.e. random lot), not elected. If you were eligible to vote, you were eligible for a term in office. Only a small fraction of the officials were elected, including for example generals.
    - ThalesX 5y ago
      IIRC, you could basically put your name in the lot, or put the name of whoever you thought would make a fit candidate.
- groby_b 5y ago
  "Athens puts all modern democracies to shame in who actually held office, and ensuring that those that did had real skin in the game" Well, unless you were a woman, a slave, or under 30, in which case oh well. Let's not exaggerate the glory of Athens.
  - marginalia_nu 5y ago
    Right, but who gets to vote is just one aspect of it. Regardless of the fact more people get to vote in our democracy, our officials almost without exception are from a fairly small socioeconomic elite. This has changed remarkably little since universal suffrage some hundred odd years ago. Despite how a lot of people get to vote, not a lot of people get to rule. The key difference, in Athens, is most political appointments were by random lot. It was literally a government by the people. No matter who you were, if you were eligible to vote, you could end up with political office. This is just not true with our modern democracies. Most people eligible to vote have no realistic path to political office.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - watwut 5y ago
      > No matter who you were, if you were eligible to vote, you could end up with political office. Point is, this was rather small portion of population. And who you were, who parents were, mattered a lot in whether you was eligible to vote. > This is just not true with our modern democracies. Most people eligible to vote have no realistic path to political office. There is too many of us eligible.
      - marginalia_nu 5y ago
        > Point is, this was rather small portion of population. And who you were, who parents were, mattered a lot in whether you was eligible to vote. Sure, but what does voting matter if the options basically are the same? > There is too many of us eligible. Right, but I'll repeat the criticism you levied above. In modern democracy, who you are, and who your parents are, matters a lot in whether you are de facto eligible to hold office.
- yongjik 5y ago
  > I imagine contemporary politics would look very differently if officials that fucked up risked ten years of exile by public vote. Imagine Google hires new developers with one condition: if they fuck up they'll never get another job in America for ten years. It will virtually guarantee that the only applicants are those with a delusion of grandeur or those who can't get a job elsewhere.
  - marginalia_nu 5y ago
    The elegant balance of the system is that everyone eligible to vote in Athens were eligible to be selected for office (through random lot). Officials weren't some distant elite separate from the voters, it could be your neighbor, it could be you next. This sort of creates an incentive to moderate the use of ostracism to the times someone really fucked up bad.
adamsmith143 5y ago
Is this percentage of possible eligible voters? If this is counting children for example then it's pretty useless.
- lkrubner 5y ago
  No, you have to count children because the definition of "children" changes over time. In 1788 most USA states had adulthood start at age 25. Now it is age 18. How would you track that change over time, except by counting the whole population? I think so long as you are aware of what the numbers mean, then this is the most accurate way to do it.
  - adamsmith143 5y ago
    It's still useless. How is it relevant that Norways %voters is higher than the US' if the US has 5x the number of people who can't vote because of age? (Numbers are made up) This says nothing about the health of a democracy and is completely to do with demographics. To illustrate the point lets create 2 fictional countries each with 100M population. In their most recent elections they both had 30M vote. By your measure they have equivalent levels of democracy at 30%. However if we say that in country 1 half of the country is under the age of 18 and is ineligible to vote and only calculate using eligible voters this becomes 60%. If in country 2 1/10 of the population is under age 18 and ineligible to vote their number becomes 33%. So country 1 has nearly twice the democracy of country 2.

marginalia_nu 5y ago

I think suffrage is a bit of a one-dimensional way of measuring a democracy. Athens puts all modern democracies to shame in who actually held office, and ensuring that those that did had real skin in the game. I imagine contemporary politics would look very differently if officials that fucked up risked ten years of exile by public vote.

hulitu 5y ago
> I imagine contemporary politics would look very differently if officials that fucked up risked ten years of exile by public vote. But would be wonderful. You will see an increase in responsability.
- xeromal 5y ago
  Or every 4 years, we just exile the old president. lol
toqy 5y ago
I don't imagine exile would be as bad today as it would back then. Our national level politicians are fairly wealthy too. Getting exiled as a local level politician would be tough though.
- earleybird 5y ago
  Assuming that would be exile relative to the jurisdiction of service - you might have to move to the next town :-)
- marginalia_nu 5y ago
  You got to keep in mind most Athenian officials were selected via sortition (i.e. random lot), not elected. If you were eligible to vote, you were eligible for a term in office. Only a small fraction of the officials were elected, including for example generals.
  - ThalesX 5y ago
    IIRC, you could basically put your name in the lot, or put the name of whoever you thought would make a fit candidate.
groby_b 5y ago
"Athens puts all modern democracies to shame in who actually held office, and ensuring that those that did had real skin in the game" Well, unless you were a woman, a slave, or under 30, in which case oh well. Let's not exaggerate the glory of Athens.
- marginalia_nu 5y ago
  Right, but who gets to vote is just one aspect of it. Regardless of the fact more people get to vote in our democracy, our officials almost without exception are from a fairly small socioeconomic elite. This has changed remarkably little since universal suffrage some hundred odd years ago. Despite how a lot of people get to vote, not a lot of people get to rule. The key difference, in Athens, is most political appointments were by random lot. It was literally a government by the people. No matter who you were, if you were eligible to vote, you could end up with political office. This is just not true with our modern democracies. Most people eligible to vote have no realistic path to political office.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - watwut 5y ago
    > No matter who you were, if you were eligible to vote, you could end up with political office. Point is, this was rather small portion of population. And who you were, who parents were, mattered a lot in whether you was eligible to vote. > This is just not true with our modern democracies. Most people eligible to vote have no realistic path to political office. There is too many of us eligible.
    - marginalia_nu 5y ago
      > Point is, this was rather small portion of population. And who you were, who parents were, mattered a lot in whether you was eligible to vote. Sure, but what does voting matter if the options basically are the same? > There is too many of us eligible. Right, but I'll repeat the criticism you levied above. In modern democracy, who you are, and who your parents are, matters a lot in whether you are de facto eligible to hold office.
yongjik 5y ago
> I imagine contemporary politics would look very differently if officials that fucked up risked ten years of exile by public vote. Imagine Google hires new developers with one condition: if they fuck up they'll never get another job in America for ten years. It will virtually guarantee that the only applicants are those with a delusion of grandeur or those who can't get a job elsewhere.
- marginalia_nu 5y ago
  The elegant balance of the system is that everyone eligible to vote in Athens were eligible to be selected for office (through random lot). Officials weren't some distant elite separate from the voters, it could be your neighbor, it could be you next. This sort of creates an incentive to moderate the use of ostracism to the times someone really fucked up bad.

adamsmith143 5y ago

Is this percentage of possible eligible voters? If this is counting children for example then it's pretty useless.

lkrubner 5y ago
No, you have to count children because the definition of "children" changes over time. In 1788 most USA states had adulthood start at age 25. Now it is age 18. How would you track that change over time, except by counting the whole population? I think so long as you are aware of what the numbers mean, then this is the most accurate way to do it.
- adamsmith143 5y ago
  It's still useless. How is it relevant that Norways %voters is higher than the US' if the US has 5x the number of people who can't vote because of age? (Numbers are made up) This says nothing about the health of a democracy and is completely to do with demographics. To illustrate the point lets create 2 fictional countries each with 100M population. In their most recent elections they both had 30M vote. By your measure they have equivalent levels of democracy at 30%. However if we say that in country 1 half of the country is under the age of 18 and is ineligible to vote and only calculate using eligible voters this becomes 60%. If in country 2 1/10 of the population is under age 18 and ineligible to vote their number becomes 33%. So country 1 has nearly twice the democracy of country 2.