Republicans, What Will Satisfy You?

[Starlight]

the world's most successful democracy. And that is objectively true.

The EIU Democracy Index:

(Overall score out of 10)

1	Norway	9.87	Full democracy
2	Iceland	9.58	Full democracy
3	Sweden	9.39	Full democracy
4	New Zealand	9.26	Full democracy
5	Finland	9.25	Full democracy

...

25

United States

7.96

Flawed democracy

Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index:

(Overall score out of 100)

1

New Zealand

87

1

Denmark

87

3

Finland

86

4

Singapore

85

4

Switzerland

85

4

Sweden

85

...

23

United States

69

Cato Institute's Human Freedom Index:

1. New Zealand
2. Switzerland
3. Hong Kong
4. Canada
5. Australia

...


15. United States

Global Peace Index:

1. Iceland
2. New Zealand
3. Portugal
4. Austria
5. Denmark

...

121. United States of America

World Happiness Report:

(out of 10)
1. Finland (7.809)
2. Denmark (7.646)
3. Switzerland (7.560)
4. Iceland (7.504)
5. Norway (7.488)
6. Netherlands (7.449)
7. Sweden (7.353)
8. New Zealand (7.300)
9. Austria (7.294)
10. Luxembourg (7.238)

...

18. United States (6.940)

Care to rephrase your claim of "objectively true"? Objectively speaking, New Zealand appears to be among the top-10 most successful democracies, and the US is appears to be clearly not. If you think about something even as basic as "hasn't had a civil war", the US's 'democracy' fails to get over that hurdle.

[CivilDiscourse]

While that's true, it's had bipartisan support in a number of Republican states as well.


I don't understand that. Sacrifice what power? And why bother to implement it when it will have no effect?


Or doing so because it is better for America and they, not the other party, are actually working for America.

What do I mean? Simple. If they believed in the compact, they would pledge to put their votes in play to the national vote now, not wait until they reach 270. However, if they did that, democrats would lose 176 blue-state baseline when it came to the electoral college. States like california wouldn't automatically give democrats their votes, and it would put the democrats at a disadvantage in the race to 270, as republicans still have their base, and can focus their efforts, money, and manpower on swingstates, while democrats would have to focus on swing-states, while simultaneously dividing their money and effort to win the national popular vote. This means that the republicans and democrats are essentially playing two separate games.

[seanD]

The EIU Democracy Index:

(Overall score out of 10)

1	Norway	9.87	Full democracy
2	Iceland	9.58	Full democracy
3	Sweden	9.39	Full democracy
4	New Zealand	9.26	Full democracy
5	Finland	9.25	Full democracy

...

25

United States

7.96

Flawed democracy

Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index:

(Overall score out of 100)

1

New Zealand

87

1

Denmark

87

3

Finland

86

4

Singapore

85

4

Switzerland

85

4

Sweden

85

...

23

United States

69

Cato Institute's Human Freedom Index:

1. New Zealand
2. Switzerland
3. Hong Kong
4. Canada
5. Australia

...


15. United States

Global Peace Index:

1. Iceland
2. New Zealand
3. Portugal
4. Austria
5. Denmark

...

121. United States of America

World Happiness Report:

(out of 10)
1. Finland (7.809)
2. Denmark (7.646)
3. Switzerland (7.560)
4. Iceland (7.504)
5. Norway (7.488)
6. Netherlands (7.449)
7. Sweden (7.353)
8. New Zealand (7.300)
9. Austria (7.294)
10. Luxembourg (7.238)

...

18. United States (6.940)

Care to rephrase your claim of "objectively true"? Objectively speaking, New Zealand appears to be among the top-10 most successful democracies, and the US is appears to be clearly not. If you think about something even as basic as "hasn't had a civil war", the US's 'democracy' fails to get over that hurdle.

Australia as a "full democracy" in and of itself discredits that whole analysis, which obviously has a subjective left leaning bent.

[Starlight]

the land of the sheep-lovers. And I don't mean that in a platonic way.

I've lived in New Zealand my whole life and never heard of a single instance of someone engaging in bestiality with a sheep. It is neither traditional, nor common, nor a thing. It would be illegal. I don't doubt that every type of crime is committed at one point or another in every country though. It probably occurs equally often in your country.

The phrase you used to describe it, that was modded, originated in the UK where it is viewed as a racial slur against the Welsh (a court there ruled the phrase counts as a racial aggravating factor in assault cases). That same phrase is not viewed as an offensive term in New Zealand (the Advertising Standards Authority said it was fine for TV ads and not offensive) and is just a colloquial term for sheep farmers, and nobody even considers the literal meaning of it as that obviously wouldn't apply.

[Starlight]

Australia as a "full democracy" in and of itself discredits that whole analysis, which obviously has a subjective left leaning bent.

I've heard some weird claims on this site. But Australia not a full democracy is a new one on me. Do please elaborate...

[seanD]

I've heard some weird claims on this site. But Australia not a full democracy is a new one on me. Do please elaborate...

Of course it's weird to you because you live in a liberal bubble, which is why you and your leftist cohorts always drone on about how great of a socialist (though there not even really full socialist) utopia EU countries are. A lefty rag dubbing EU countries the most democratic... gee, didn't see that coming. Australia has always been a soft totalitarian state, which should come as no surprise they'd be the country to enact some of the most severe and totalitarian pandemic mandates. It's just par for the course.

[Electric Skeptic]

Australia as a "full democracy" in and of itself discredits that whole analysis, which obviously has a subjective left leaning bent.

You mean "It doesn't rank the US highly, so I'll discard it."

So much for your 'objective' claim.

[Electric Skeptic]

What do I mean? Simple. If they believed in the compact, they would pledge to put their votes in play to the national vote now, not wait until they reach 270. However, if they did that, democrats would lose 176 blue-state baseline when it came to the electoral college. States like california wouldn't automatically give democrats their votes, and it would put the democrats at a disadvantage in the race to 270, as republicans still have their base, and can focus their efforts, money, and manpower on swingstates, while democrats would have to focus on swing-states, while simultaneously dividing their money and effort to win the national popular vote. This means that the republicans and democrats are essentially playing two separate games.

Maybe I'm slow, but this didn't even make sense. What would they do differently to go for the national popular vote?

And, again, why would the implement something that isn't designed to take effect until a majority of states' voters are bound to it before that point? Of course they believe in the compact, but they know it won't work until they get to 270.

[Electric Skeptic]

Of course it's weird to you because you live in a liberal bubble, which is why you and your leftist cohorts always drone on about how great of a socialist (though there not even really full socialist) utopia EU countries are. A lefty rag dubbing EU countries the most democratic... gee, didn't see that coming. Australia has always been a soft totalitarian state, which should come as no surprise they'd be the country to enact some of the most severe and totalitarian pandemic mandates. It's just par for the course.

This is just laughable. Your "lefty rag" is actually five different web sites, all of which rank the US low. Of course, you're happy to just discard them because they don't say what you want.

And claiming Australia to be a "soft totalitarian state" is just idiotic. I lived there for nearly 50 years; it's a democracy. To be precise, it's a parliamentary constitutional monarchy. But I'll resort to the dictionary (as I so often do when discussing this and similar matters with Americans, who don't seem to know what a democracy is):

Democracy:
Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

Just as soon as you can demonstrate that Australia is not governed through elected representatives (you can't), you'll be able to legimately say that Australia isn't a democracy.

But..."a sort totalitarian state"...surely you didn't expect anyone to take that seriously?

[Gondwanaland]

It was about how to change America. If the governmental system was changed completely (which it could certainly stand) America would still be America.

No, it most certainly would not.

[Electric Skeptic]

No, it most certainly would not.

Of course it would.

[seanD]

This is just laughable. Your "lefty rag" is actually five different web sites, all of which rank the US low. Of course, you're happy to just discard them because they don't say what you want.

And claiming Australia to be a "soft totalitarian state" is just idiotic. I lived there for nearly 50 years; it's a democracy. To be precise, it's a parliamentary constitutional monarchy. But I'll resort to the dictionary (as I so often do when discussing this and similar matters with Americans, who don't seem to know what a democracy is):

Democracy:
Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

Just as soon as you can demonstrate that Australia is not governed through elected representatives (you can't), you'll be able to legimately say that Australia isn't a democracy.

But..."a sort totalitarian state"...surely you didn't expect anyone to take that seriously?

"Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives." If that's the criteria you're using, then explain how the US is any less of a democracy than Australia? You can't, thus those lists are bogus and subjective.

[Ronson]

Care to rephrase your claim of "objectively true"? Objectively speaking, New Zealand appears to be among the top-10 most successful democracies, and the US is appears to be clearly not. If you think about something even as basic as "hasn't had a civil war", the US's 'democracy' fails to get over that hurdle.

Objectively true

#1 economy
#1 immigration (gee, why do all of those people want to come here?)
Constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms
#1 military (most of those other democracies want to subsidize their militaries through us to support their socialist wonderlands)

Now, on a subjective globalist scale, you guys can congratulate yourselves all you want.

[Electric Skeptic]

"Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives." If that's the criteria you're using, then explain how the US is any less of a democracy than Australia? You can't, thus those lists are bogus and subjective.

I nowhere claimed, implied or suggest that the US is "any less of a democracy than Australia". Strawman. Your attempt to make out that the (five different) lists are "bogus and subjective" is invalid.

The issue is the claim that it is "objectively true" that the US is the world's most successful democracy.

Five different websites have been cited, all judging different aspects of countries' democracy, and all have found the US to be very low on the list. Your response has been:
- a claim about "lefty news"
- a claim that Australia is a "soft totalitiarian state" and now
- a strawman trying to defend something that was never claimed.

Still waiting for you - or anybody - to define the criteria by which it is "objectively true" that the US is the world's most successful democracy.

[Electric Skeptic]

Objectively true

#1 economy

Cite a source for that claim.

#1 immigration (gee, why do all of those people want to come here?)

Cite a source for that claim.

Constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms

All countries have guaranteed rights and freedoms; most have constitutions or similar documents. Cite a source that shows the US' somehow 'better'.

#1 military (most of those other democracies want to subsidize their militaries through us to support their socialist wonderlands)

Yup. Greatest military in the world. What that has to do with democracy, I don't know.

Now, on a subjective globalist scale, you guys can congratulate yourselves all you want.

The ONLY objective criteria you've identified is the military. Which nobody has disputed.

The claim that it is "objectively true" that the US is the "world's greatest democracy" remains unproven, and all the evidence stacks up the other way.