Democracy Index by country (2017)

How is that weird, considering we have 3 major parties, with the Greens stealing votes in BC? With three viable national options, it's obviously highly unlikely that one will get 50% of all total votes. That would be the equivalent of a total landslide in the US.


Its undemocratic. The minority rules the majority.
 
The common man may feel its insulting, but its built into the Constitution.
The problem is that populations are concentrated and it gives some states disproportional power.

But, is it not fair if states with greater population that contribute with more tax money would have more to say?
 
Or old guys. Men traveling to Thailand in general deserve a few squinted eyes.
Yeah should be obvious but somehow I just hear it more from young guys. They're like "Thailand was so much fun" and I can't help but be grossed out by them.
 
But, is it not fair if states with greater population that contribute with more tax money would have more to say?

Not that is fair. What not fair is when a state has less of a population gets a disproportionally high say in the outcome.

edit:

I misread your post and my response is autocorrected to shite:

yes, it is fair if states with a greater population have more to say; but it should be proportional and its not. Example: CA should have 20x more say than NM, but it only has 11x.

However, that isn't the absolute answer either. If it were, candidates would just ignore the other States. @Rod1 had the better solution.
 
Last edited:
Yeah should be obvious but somehow I just hear it more from young guys. They're like "Thailand was so much fun" and I can't help but be grossed out by them.

- "Thailand was so much fun!"
+ "Glad you had a good time. Don't sit on my furniture."
 
The Democracy Index is an index compiled by the Uk-based company the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) that intends to measure the state of democracy in 167 countries, of which 166 are sovereign states and 165 are UN members.

The index was first produced in 2006, with updates for 2008, 2010 and the following years since then. The index is based on 60 indicators grouped in five different categories measuring pluralism, civil liberties and political culture. In addition to a numeric score and a ranking, the index categorises countries as one of four regime types: full democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid regimes and authoritarian regimes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

Before any of you click the link of source. I would like to ask you to do a little test. Can you name 15 countries that are ranked inside the category of full democracy?(out of 19)

Furthermore, what country have you traveled to(transit is not valid) that is included in the category of authoritarian regimes?

I have been to Guinea-Bissau that has the rank of 157 out of 167. To sit here today and reflect the past, it is quite amusing to think about it.

Uruguay is a country I don´t know much about, but is by far the biggest surprise for me in this list.

Seriously who pays these people to compile a list like this? What relevance to any consumer can such a list possibly have? Any institutional investor should have the inside track, so won't need this list that is just publicly out there for anyone to read.
 
Functioning of government:
Mexico - 6.41
China - 5.00
Argentina - 5.00
Cuba - 4.29
Iran - 3.21

LOL, okay. Did the cartel pay off these guys too?

@Rod1 What thinks you? You may have a negative opinion of the above countries, but it's really, really hard for me to imagine a metric by which their government functionality is lower than Mexico. As I have said often, I think there is much to admire about both China and Cuba in terms of government functionality.
 
Last edited:
@sweede - I misread your post and gave a sloppy reply. Please see my edit. Cheers.
 
Well the difference in the score is marginal and the index number has to distinguish somewhere. And I feel Portugal has always been the catching up country of Europe. It was not that long ago since they were a dictatorship.
That is why I compared it to Spain. They were both dictatorships at around the same time. Franco and Salazar, best buddies.
 
Crazy how the US was #21 and India was #42. There is a HUUUUUUUUUGE gap between the US and India in terms of election fairness, voter security, and democracy. I can't imagine how fucked up the countries in the bottom #50 must be.
 
Bu bu but Norway and Sweden are socialist/communist they can't be more democratic and free than USA

-conservatives
 
1) It says Trump being elected was a primary reason US was dongraded from full to flawed democracy. That just sounds like bullshit bias from the company making its own arbitrary list

2) I don't disagree with the flawed democracy rating due to our shitty two party system where social aspects are locked in with economic policies really depriving voters of a chance to vote for a candidate they ever actually agree with

You dont see how Trump losing the vote but winning the election would hurt the perception of democracy?
 
As if those are the only options. Tell us more about your anencephaly.

Doesnt matter how many options, we know the one that you prefer and champion.

And like a bish you avoid my question per usual and try to sound more intelligent than you are by using an uncommon word to try and impress the low lights.
 
Doesnt matter how many options, we know the one that you prefer and champion.

And like a bish you avoid my question per usual and try to sound more intelligent than you are by using an uncommon word to try and impress the low lights.

I'm not referring specifically to @Greoric with this comment but the thread provides me laugh after laugh when angry right wingers come in and get so upset that their vision of freedom is never reflected in these kinds of indexes. It's almost like being spoonfed freedom-patriotism over and over makes you quite ignorant to the rest of the world.

I don't really give these indexes a whole lot of credibility either but they sure make for a great joke with how upset people get.
 
More free than the land of the free

fuck_yeah.gif

I'd like to know how the Kiwi's pipped us though.
Without checking the metrics, I'm going to assume it's more corruption/foreign interference/gerrymandering.
 
yes. Those 160k of facebook ads were so influential :rolleyes:

Haha yeah, I always laugh at how childish that kind of propoganda is and surely it would have an affect on only the most marginalised fringe people out there.

There are ongoing questions however about big money and corruption within Trump's team where a lot of political influence can be exerted. I don't know if it's true or not so it doesn't feel particularly fair to penalise the standing on the basis of an investigation only.

I would say though that the influence of big business on politics in the US far exceeds that in Australia. We have dodgy stuff like everyone does but it just feels that money buys so much more in the US.

Finally I'd add that from an outsider perspective our news sources were pretty critical of how the Republican party blocked so much of the Democrats' policies during the Obama era. I'm sure others will have a more educated perspective on this so feel free to correct me. Whether you agree with the reasons behind it or not that does affect #4 considerably:

4. "The capability of the civil servants to implement policies".
 
I'd like to know how the Kiwi's pipped us though.
Without checking the metrics, I'm going to assume it's more corruption/foreign interference/gerrymandering.

The Kiwi's are just good at what they do and everyone loves them. I suspect the growing conflict between Australia and China specifically with regard to increasing concerns about Chinese influence would shift our position somewhat.
 
Back
Top