5 ms·

Interesting, some say that the US is the only real democracy in the world. The UK is not, nor any other countries in the world. They base this assertion in two

Interesting, some say that the US is the only real democracy in the world. The UK is not, nor any other countries in the world. They base this assertion in two principles that any democracy should fulfill: 1) Power separation. 2) Representativity. I can see that you don't agree with this, but what country has a better system then?

archerx 2y ago
Switzerland, we can actually vote for things instead of voting for people who we hope will vote for what we want.
- ghaff 2y ago
  And the proliferation of ballot questions in US states has been a rather mixed bag. And in many locales in the US, there are direct votes on many local matters.
- giraffe_lady 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - rpmisms 2y ago
    Sounds like an argument for direct democracy to me. The will of the people was implemented, even though it's politically incorrect.
    - giraffe_lady 2y ago
      I don't always know what "politically incorrect" is being used as a euphemism for but banning mosques seems straightforwardly bad to me idk I guess I'm just a woke dumbass hey.
      - snapcaster 2y ago
        Not that you're a woke dumbass, just probably not a true believer in democracy. The thing described above I also dislike, but I recognize I'm not a resident or voter there and I shouldn't get a say in their lives
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - palata 2y ago
        As said above, it was not banning mosques, but minarets specifically. There were only 4 minarets in Switzerland at the time, and no plan to build any more. You could try to build a minaret in Switzerland, get the permit refused, appeal, and try to go up to a court high enough to make that law illegal. But it seems like nobody cared. It was more political theater at the time. Not that it was a good vote, but I wouldn't say that the Swiss democracy doesn't work based on that. Switzerland is an example of consensus, and a functional democracy.
      - rpmisms 2y ago
        No euphemism. It is politically incorrect.
  - another2another 2y ago
    I think it was specifically just minarets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Swiss_minaret_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Swiss_minaret_referendum Now, you might find even that a bit overbearing, but I believe the right of a community to influence the architecture of their local town shouldn't be seen as a bad thing. The feeling was that the few minarets that already existed were incongruent enough, that they didn't want a carte-blanche on more sprouting up, which I think planning permission had already been applied for.
    - giraffe_lady 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - rainworld 2y ago
        [flagged]
        giraffe_lady 2y ago
        What?
        rainworld 2y ago
        No such thing as “value-neutral”. Not in architecture nor anywhere else.
  - red_admiral 2y ago
    Minarets. Another referendum - in fact the first one ever to be accepted since the reconstitution of Switzerland as a federal state post-Napoleon - banned kosher/halal slaughtering of animals (at the time it was directed against Jews, not Muslims). The ban stands to this day.
- palata 2y ago
  Not that I disagree, but what I believe makes Switzerland a functioning democracy is that people feel represented. Go complain about the result of a vote in Switzerland and people will say "did you vote?" instead of following you to invade the Capitol. If you did vote, then people will say "well, you're in the minority then". The mere fact that most people feel that way shows, to me, that the system works. Compare that to e.g. France where Macron got less than 20% in the first round. It means that 80% of the votes were not for him, and of the 20% remaining, a lot did not want him but just thought he was the best chance against the far-right candidate. Right when Macron was re-elected, you could say that more than 80% of the people who voted did not want him. That's a problem IMO. Not even talking about the US presidents...
  - SomberSummers 2y ago
    > "well, you're in the minority then" 49% minority = get fucked <1% minority = here's your new lords and saviours
    - palata 2y ago
      Not sure what you mean. The people in Switzerland votes for a ton of stuff (not just for a president every 4 years). If you manage to always be on the minority, then probably you are doing it on purpose. The norm is that people are sometimes in the minority, sometimes in the majority. That's called consensus, that's what makes for a good democracy IMO. The opposite (again IMO) is a system where the people votes for a president every 4 years, and invades the Capitol when they lose. BTW Switzerland does not have a president, but instead a group of 7 representing the biggest parties in the country. So there is consensus even at the highest level.
thesuitonym 2y ago
>Interesting, some say that the US is the only real democracy in the world. Who? The talking heads paid to do so?
Winse 2y ago
huh...I always thought of the US as a republic with some democratic features. I mean that's why we have things like the electoral college. Your voice influences but doesn't not actually drive.
edgyquant 2y ago
[flagged]
wongarsu 2y ago
Well, I would have said that the base criteria for a democracy is that the government is an extension of the will of the people (hence the name). But we can agree that Power separation and Representativity are reasonable proxies. But the US isn't well set up for representativity at all. Without going into the finer issues like gerrymandering or the more controversial things like the electoral college, the core issue is that a first-past-the-post system means there can only be two meaningful parties. So you can only really have two sides, when real issues often are far more nuanced than that.
treflop 2y ago
As a born-and-raised US citizen who went through US schooling and therefore got a load of political science, no. The US is a republic. You could call it a form of democracy, but you would first call it a republic before a democracy. Representativity is what makes it NOT a democracy. James Madison, a US founding father, felt that (direct) democracy led to mob rule and did not think that people directly voting on issues was a good idea. You can read his opinion from 1788 in the Federalist Papers, #55: https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-51-60#s-lg-box-wrapper-25493431 https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-51-60#s-lg-box... "Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob." - Alexander Hamilton or James Madison The world of political science is massive. There is no "best" system because once you read through this entire body of study, you realize it consists of compromises. People have been trying to figure this out for a very long time.
- dragonelite 2y ago
  Voting behavior can be easily hacked as one can see in world elections. Its not for nothing you have analyst, advisors or other sort of experts in the field of electioneering.
  - ecommerceguy 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - ecommerceguy 2y ago
      I'm sure it's deep staters down voting me. That's fine. Oh look, even the Indian Supreme court state election machines can be manipulated by partisan humans. Go figure. https://www.thehindu.com/elections/supreme-court-rejects-a-return-to-paper-ballots-says-machines-are-accurate-unless-maligned-by-human-bias/article68072488.ece https://www.thehindu.com/elections/supreme-court-rejects-a-r... edit> That was the fasted one yet!

archerx 2y ago

Switzerland, we can actually vote for things instead of voting for people who we hope will vote for what we want.

ghaff 2y ago
And the proliferation of ballot questions in US states has been a rather mixed bag. And in many locales in the US, there are direct votes on many local matters.
giraffe_lady 2y ago
[flagged]
- rpmisms 2y ago
  Sounds like an argument for direct democracy to me. The will of the people was implemented, even though it's politically incorrect.
  - giraffe_lady 2y ago
    I don't always know what "politically incorrect" is being used as a euphemism for but banning mosques seems straightforwardly bad to me idk I guess I'm just a woke dumbass hey.
    - snapcaster 2y ago
      Not that you're a woke dumbass, just probably not a true believer in democracy. The thing described above I also dislike, but I recognize I'm not a resident or voter there and I shouldn't get a say in their lives
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - palata 2y ago
      As said above, it was not banning mosques, but minarets specifically. There were only 4 minarets in Switzerland at the time, and no plan to build any more. You could try to build a minaret in Switzerland, get the permit refused, appeal, and try to go up to a court high enough to make that law illegal. But it seems like nobody cared. It was more political theater at the time. Not that it was a good vote, but I wouldn't say that the Swiss democracy doesn't work based on that. Switzerland is an example of consensus, and a functional democracy.
    - rpmisms 2y ago
      No euphemism. It is politically incorrect.
- another2another 2y ago
  I think it was specifically just minarets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Swiss_minaret_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Swiss_minaret_referendum Now, you might find even that a bit overbearing, but I believe the right of a community to influence the architecture of their local town shouldn't be seen as a bad thing. The feeling was that the few minarets that already existed were incongruent enough, that they didn't want a carte-blanche on more sprouting up, which I think planning permission had already been applied for.
  - giraffe_lady 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - rainworld 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - giraffe_lady 2y ago
        What?
        rainworld 2y ago
        No such thing as “value-neutral”. Not in architecture nor anywhere else.
- red_admiral 2y ago
  Minarets. Another referendum - in fact the first one ever to be accepted since the reconstitution of Switzerland as a federal state post-Napoleon - banned kosher/halal slaughtering of animals (at the time it was directed against Jews, not Muslims). The ban stands to this day.
palata 2y ago
Not that I disagree, but what I believe makes Switzerland a functioning democracy is that people feel represented. Go complain about the result of a vote in Switzerland and people will say "did you vote?" instead of following you to invade the Capitol. If you did vote, then people will say "well, you're in the minority then". The mere fact that most people feel that way shows, to me, that the system works. Compare that to e.g. France where Macron got less than 20% in the first round. It means that 80% of the votes were not for him, and of the 20% remaining, a lot did not want him but just thought he was the best chance against the far-right candidate. Right when Macron was re-elected, you could say that more than 80% of the people who voted did not want him. That's a problem IMO. Not even talking about the US presidents...
- SomberSummers 2y ago
  > "well, you're in the minority then" 49% minority = get fucked <1% minority = here's your new lords and saviours
  - palata 2y ago
    Not sure what you mean. The people in Switzerland votes for a ton of stuff (not just for a president every 4 years). If you manage to always be on the minority, then probably you are doing it on purpose. The norm is that people are sometimes in the minority, sometimes in the majority. That's called consensus, that's what makes for a good democracy IMO. The opposite (again IMO) is a system where the people votes for a president every 4 years, and invades the Capitol when they lose. BTW Switzerland does not have a president, but instead a group of 7 representing the biggest parties in the country. So there is consensus even at the highest level.

thesuitonym 2y ago

>Interesting, some say that the US is the only real democracy in the world. Who? The talking heads paid to do so?

Winse 2y ago

huh...I always thought of the US as a republic with some democratic features. I mean that's why we have things like the electoral college. Your voice influences but doesn't not actually drive.

edgyquant 2y ago

[flagged]

wongarsu 2y ago

Well, I would have said that the base criteria for a democracy is that the government is an extension of the will of the people (hence the name). But we can agree that Power separation and Representativity are reasonable proxies. But the US isn't well set up for representativity at all. Without going into the finer issues like gerrymandering or the more controversial things like the electoral college, the core issue is that a first-past-the-post system means there can only be two meaningful parties. So you can only really have two sides, when real issues often are far more nuanced than that.

treflop 2y ago

As a born-and-raised US citizen who went through US schooling and therefore got a load of political science, no. The US is a republic. You could call it a form of democracy, but you would first call it a republic before a democracy. Representativity is what makes it NOT a democracy. James Madison, a US founding father, felt that (direct) democracy led to mob rule and did not think that people directly voting on issues was a good idea. You can read his opinion from 1788 in the Federalist Papers, #55: https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-51-60#s-lg-box-wrapper-25493431 https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-51-60#s-lg-box... "Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob." - Alexander Hamilton or James Madison The world of political science is massive. There is no "best" system because once you read through this entire body of study, you realize it consists of compromises. People have been trying to figure this out for a very long time.

dragonelite 2y ago
Voting behavior can be easily hacked as one can see in world elections. Its not for nothing you have analyst, advisors or other sort of experts in the field of electioneering.
- ecommerceguy 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - ecommerceguy 2y ago
    I'm sure it's deep staters down voting me. That's fine. Oh look, even the Indian Supreme court state election machines can be manipulated by partisan humans. Go figure. https://www.thehindu.com/elections/supreme-court-rejects-a-return-to-paper-ballots-says-machines-are-accurate-unless-maligned-by-human-bias/article68072488.ece https://www.thehindu.com/elections/supreme-court-rejects-a-r... edit> That was the fasted one yet!