Democracy is in the midst of its longest continuous decline in nearly 40 years.

I don't necessarily think that voting is equivalent to democracy, so maybe its good for democracy that there is less voting going on.

 

Mind going into detail about this a bit more.
I am a bit confused.

Democracy is all about voting . . is it not?

Rocket River

 

Yeah, I am sensing an interesting article followed by a heap of thread fail to come.

The article itself is pretty interesting -- thanks for posting it.

More global access to information (in general) and less freedom to do anything about it, to change one's life. The more global and immense the primary money piles get, the harder it will get for the rest of us to get anything done (beyond watching TV and surfing the web, etc. if we're even that lucky.)

The alternatives to changing the system from within are frightening, but ... I'm not going to finish that sentence on the internet. Let's just say I don't see how you can use the corrupt system to change the corrupt system.

I was reading a book about Teddy Roosevelt in the early 20th century, and I am still shaking my head. How did he happen to the US? Why? Whatever let him emerge, we need to restart the process -- we desperately need another TR in response to our very own new 1900 era.

 

What about the United Arab Emirates? What exactly do you think is going backwards in "Germany, Belgium, France, etc."? As I see it, regardless of your usual whine-fest about alleged Islamophobia that is supposedly a setback for democracy, these countries are still light years ahead of the United Arab Emirates.

 

wait ... what?

 

In mother Russia, government vote on who get to be citizen!

 

Not necessarily. If people decide to vote, and that's a big if (especially at local levels), they get to choose from a limited segment of the population who seek out power, and who are vetted by entities (the two parties, corporations, etc.) who are rarely concerned with the public's interests. To me, the system of voting is hardly democratic. It would be more democratic to elect representatives at random from the adult population with some means of recalling incompetent representatives (by petition, etc.). This way, there is no vetting of representatives by private entities, money has no influence in elections, the people elected aren't explicitly seeking power, and those elected would be a fair statistical representation of society as a whole. That's why voting isn't necessarily democratic. There are other ways of achieving democracy in government.

 

1. "Candidates aren't perfect" "Voting is hardly democratic"
I fail to see a link between these two statements.

2. .......................you would be fine with having your neighbor running the country? Or your best friend? I sure as heck wouldn't want them there. Not to mention how would the incompetent representatives be decided? By those who can get their voice out aka. those with money.

If that's more democratic, then well, we aren't a democracy and I like it that way.

 

I agree. If people don't care or don't read up at all on current events (ie my mom who votes fore whoever her friends say she should vote for), then they shouldn't vote.

As far as that right being taken away? Well if there was some perfect system of judging a person's aptitude then it would be great.

We used to be able to use skin color and gender but threw that system down the drain.

 

Wait, you made your usual unfounded blanket statements about democracy in certain countries. Then, when asked to back up your statements, you say a discussion of your hypotheses is "for children".

So what is it? First, you start a thread claiming democracy is in the midst of its longest continuous decline in 40 years. Then, you name certain countries as examples of that hypothesis.

Then, when asked to back up your statement, you are unable to do so and say "start your own thread for that".

Ridiculously weak.

Then why do you throw out these statements, and then you can't back them up?

Who are "we"? You and your mom?

Who cares how old the UAE is. Unified Germany is 22 years old. It's a stable democracy. Yet, you of all people, someone who works for a dictatorship, smear it with an unfounded blanket statement, then fail to back up your statement when challenged to do so.

As usual.

 

It's simple. Focus here for a second. Please address this statement, pretend we're children if you have to. Entertain me. How is democracy faltering in Germany, Belgium, France, etc.? How is this "to be expected" in your opinion?

Gotta love the Mathloom bait and switch.

 

Mathloom, I can read very well. You are simply unable to back up your dumb claims.

It is plainly obvious what you are referring to with your reference to these countries, and it shows that you - as someone who works for a dictatorship - have absolutely no idea of what you are blabbering about.

For you, "democracy" = either promoting Islam or not doing something that you think prevents promotion of Islam. Just spell it out. You have a very singular focus there, and it is evident with your little list of countries that you mention.

At the same time, you don't seem to care about the fact that women's rights and rights of minorities are curbed in your own country - in fact, you work for the dictatorship that does that.

You are the last person that should grandstand about free Western countries supposedly making steps backward with regard to how democratic they are, especially if you are unwilling and unable to back up your claims.

 

Exactly...it is so obvious what this disingenuous fanatic is (unsuccessfully) trying to do.