3 ms·
Which is why, instead of "democracy", it's more useful to quantify democratic. One traditional measure of such is the degree to which political power can be gai
by Balinares 2mo ago
Which is why, instead of "democracy", it's more useful to quantify democratic. One traditional measure of such is the degree to which political power can be gained through free elections. But the research in TFA instead uses a novel measure: the weight a population has in its country's policymaking. Which yields fascinating results.
Because, per the linked research, in present-time USA that weight is ~zero.
Which is especially interesting considering the USA's narratives about itself. And how, it seems to me, its population is so invested in said narratives that it will defend those even in the face of contrary research. You'd think a culture so invested in its self-determination would be angry about this result and endeavor to do something about it.
- inigyou 2mo agoThe linked research was 12 years ago during the Obama regime. Have things changed since Obama?
- inglor_cz 2mo agoIsn't this partly a question of sheer size of countries like the US and India? In Slovenia or Denmark, there may be two degrees of separation fewer between the regular voter and, say, an ordinary MP, because the parliaments and government are about the same size, but the population is in single millions. Even here in Czechia quite a lot of people actually know personally some high-ranking politician. How many Americans are on friendly terms with their Rep or Senator?
- tdeck 2mo ago> How many Americans are on friendly terms with their Rep or Senator? I would imagine if you limited this to folks with $100MM+ net worth, the percentage wouldn't be so low.
- inglor_cz 2mo agoThis works in smaller countries as well, though. I would expect that our local tycoons know half of the Parliament and most of the ministers. And given that there is fewer very rich people here, they may individually have bigger impact on the legislation.
- roenxi 2mo agoI don't think it is obvious that measure is meaningful though. The US has always been explicit that it doesn't trust the majority of the population to make decisions and has built intentional systems to keep them out. That is still democratic, the people could change those systems if they really put their mind to it, because the power does technically flow from the people if they really put their foot down. It is pretty safe to say that the US could be more democratic. It is probably reasonable to compare it to other countries in terms of how democratic it is. But saying it is "not a democracy" is a fairly trivial observation. Republics aren't technically democracies if democracy means that the people make the decisions and win on all the disagreements. Republics are modelled on places like Rome that had a very visible and powerful oligarchy.
- tdeck 2mo ago> That is still democratic, the people could change those systems if they really put their mind to it, because the power does technically flow from the people if they really put their foot down. This statement applies to absolute monarchies as well; we have many examples from history where the people have "really put their foot down" and won concessions from that form of government. I don't see how this is enough to call the system democratic.
- roenxi 2mo agoThe key thing is whether it is legal though. If we allow that people abandon the rules and do what is possible then any system can be anything. But in an undemocratic system the people forcing a change requires arm twisting beyond the formal channels. In the US the people can, formally and legally, do pretty much whatever they like if they vote for it consistently over the course of about a decade.