3 ms·

It looks like they consider the US to have become a democracy in 1921, which would point to the 19th amendment as the thing that made the US "become a democracy

It looks like they consider the US to have become a democracy in 1921, which would point to the 19th amendment as the thing that made the US "become a democracy" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth_Amendment_to_the_Un...). The term "electoral autocracy" hardly seems to fit, whatever failings the US might have had prior to that time. Nor does the term "closed autocracy" really seem to make sense referring to the administration of George Washington. While Washington was unanimously elected to be President (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...), the President had relatively little power at the time, and the other government officials were not unanimously elected.

kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
By that measure Switzerland wasn't a democracy until 1971 or 1991.
- watwut 5y ago
  Why is that issue?
ska 5y ago
They've used a constructive approach to this, and I think what flips from "Electoral Autocracy" to "Electoral Democracy" relies on a threshold calculation of "polyarchy": "We claim that Dahl’s theory of polyarchy (1971, 1998) provides the most comprehensive and most widely accepted theory of what distinguishes a democracy based on six (1998,p. 85—originally p. 8 in his 1971 book) institutional guarantees (elected officials, free and fair elections, freedom of expression, alternative sources of information, associational autonomy, and inclusive citizenship). This conception requires not only free and fair elections but also the freedoms that make them meaningful, and thus avoids the electoral fallacy (Diamond, 2002; Karl, 1986). " I don't know how they made and weighted that calculation, but you can see how any country near the threshold would have lots to argue about. US I imagine scored low (or high, not sure which way is +ve) on inclusive citizenship in earlier years, less clear on the others.
- jkingsbery 5y ago
  I mean, they can make up new definitions for the words "autocracy" and "democracy," I suppose, but that's not what they mean. It calls to mind Alice's discussion with Humpty Dumpty: > 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.' > 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' Whatever caveats need to be added or however much it would differ from our ideal, I've never seen anyone call the form of government of Athens in the period between the Persian War and the Peloponnesian War anything other than "democracy." The Roman Republic, for whatever it's short comings, was a republic. America in 1790 or 1850 was at least as democratic as either of them (by the six measures you list, or by any other useful measure).
rurban 5y ago
In my book the US stopped being a democracy in the 1930ies. It's a "fascist" system in constant war since then. The modern term would be cooperatist. Even moderate political scientists rank the US below the democracy line. And calling Australia a liberal democracy is also a stretch. Independence of the 3 government powers plus press and education would be needed for a modern democracy. Looks like a CIA puff piece.

kevin_thibedeau 5y ago

By that measure Switzerland wasn't a democracy until 1971 or 1991.

watwut 5y ago
Why is that issue?

ska 5y ago

They've used a constructive approach to this, and I think what flips from "Electoral Autocracy" to "Electoral Democracy" relies on a threshold calculation of "polyarchy": "We claim that Dahl’s theory of polyarchy (1971, 1998) provides the most comprehensive and most widely accepted theory of what distinguishes a democracy based on six (1998,p. 85—originally p. 8 in his 1971 book) institutional guarantees (elected officials, free and fair elections, freedom of expression, alternative sources of information, associational autonomy, and inclusive citizenship). This conception requires not only free and fair elections but also the freedoms that make them meaningful, and thus avoids the electoral fallacy (Diamond, 2002; Karl, 1986). " I don't know how they made and weighted that calculation, but you can see how any country near the threshold would have lots to argue about. US I imagine scored low (or high, not sure which way is +ve) on inclusive citizenship in earlier years, less clear on the others.

jkingsbery 5y ago
I mean, they can make up new definitions for the words "autocracy" and "democracy," I suppose, but that's not what they mean. It calls to mind Alice's discussion with Humpty Dumpty: > 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.' > 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' Whatever caveats need to be added or however much it would differ from our ideal, I've never seen anyone call the form of government of Athens in the period between the Persian War and the Peloponnesian War anything other than "democracy." The Roman Republic, for whatever it's short comings, was a republic. America in 1790 or 1850 was at least as democratic as either of them (by the six measures you list, or by any other useful measure).

rurban 5y ago

In my book the US stopped being a democracy in the 1930ies. It's a "fascist" system in constant war since then. The modern term would be cooperatist. Even moderate political scientists rank the US below the democracy line. And calling Australia a liberal democracy is also a stretch. Independence of the 3 government powers plus press and education would be needed for a modern democracy. Looks like a CIA puff piece.