List of best democracies

[DanishDynamite]

The Economist just published a new "Democracy Index," in which it ranks 167 countries around the world according to their degree of democracy.

The report

Here's the top 5:

1. Sweden
2. Iceland
3. Netherlands
4. Norway
5. Denmark

Notice any pattern?

 

[brodski]

The Economist just published a new "Democracy Index," in which it ranks 167 countries around the world according to their degree of democracy.

The report

Here's the top 5:

1. Sweden
2. Iceland
3. Netherlands
4. Norway
5. Denmark

Notice any pattern?

Is the pattern that they all have the type of government that you'd like, if you like that kind of government?

Once you get past a certain (fuzzy) point, and increase in democracy is not necessarily a good thing. Which is why there are very few absolute democracies.

 

[Darat]

The Economist just published a new "Democracy Index," in which it ranks 167 countries around the world according to their degree of democracy.

The report

Here's the top 5:

1. Sweden
2. Iceland
3. Netherlands
4. Norway
5. Denmark

Notice any pattern?

The only thing I can think of the top of my head is that they are all countries with relatively small populations?

 

[CFLarsen]

Once you get past a certain (fuzzy) point, and increase in democracy is not necessarily a good thing.

Why not? When is democracy not a "good thing"?

Which is why there are very few absolute democracies.

Can you name those that are?

 

[brodski]

Why not? When is democracy not a "good thing"?

Well, absolute democracy is the tyranny of the majority. Which is why every "western" democracy we see is a liberal democracy, a blending of two conflicting ideologies. exactly what the optimum for that blend is, is a matter of debate and personal preference.

Can you name those that are?

No I cannot. There may be none at the current time.

 

[CFLarsen]

The only thing I can think of the top of my head is that they are all countries with relatively small populations?

Yeah, but look at number 8 and 9: Australia and Canada. Germany is 13.

Hardly micro states.

 

[CFLarsen]

No I cannot. There may be none at the current time.

Okie doke. When is an increase in democracy not necessarily a good thing?

 

[PogoPedant]

There was one absolute democracy a few thousand years ago.. somewhere in Mediterranean europe... can't for the life of me understand why people still insist on bringing it up when it painfully obvious that democracy does not equate absolute democracy in modern conversation.

 

[brodski]

Okie doke. When is an increase in democracy not necessarily a good thing?

I edited my post above. Damn you're quick.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The Economist just published a new "Democracy Index," in which it ranks 167 countries around the world according to their degree of democracy.

The report

Here's the top 5:

1. Sweden
2. Iceland
3. Netherlands
4. Norway
5. Denmark

Notice any pattern?

They almost spell "Sinned".
They all end in consonants.
They are all located in the Milky Way galaxy.
The citizens of each of them are carbon-based lifeforms.
Domestication of the dog is present in each.
There hasn't been a "Survivor" series set in any of them.
None of them have Graceland.
None have wild monkeys in abundant profusion.
My great aunt hasn't visited any of them.

Plenty of patterns. Which are significant? All of them, or just most?

 

[Darat]

Yeah, but look at number 8 and 9: Australia and Canada. Germany is 13.

Hardly micro states.

Australia and Canada have relatively small populations.

 

[CFLarsen]

I edited my post above. Damn you're quick.

No need to edit it. Just acknowledge and move on.

And yes, I am quick.

Well, absolute democracy is the tyranny of the majority. Which is why every "western" democracy we see is a liberal democracy, a blending of two conflicting ideologies. exactly what the optimum for that blend is, is a matter of debate and personal preference.

Eh...come again? What two conflicting ideologies are you talking about?

What do you mean by "liberal" democracy?

I know that you 'Mericans use it somewhat differently than we 'Ropeans do. That's why I ask.

 

[CFLarsen]

Australia and Canada have relatively small populations.

Compared to China and India, sure.

But compared to China and India, the US also has a "relatively small" population.

 

[firecoins]

Why not? When is democracy not a "good thing"?

when your in the minority.

 

[Darat]

Compared to China and India, sure.

But compared to China and India, the US also has a "relatively small" population.

Well considering that there are some cities in the world with larger populations then say the entire population of Sweden I think saying they are countries with a relatively small population is a fair way of putting it.

Swedish population - around 9 million, population of Denmark around 5 million, population of Australia 20 million, Canada 32 million, population of London - 7 million, population of New York - 8 million, population of Mumbai - 12 million.

Must admit I didn't realize that Canada's population was so large.

 

[CFLarsen]

when your in the minority.

How will you work around that?

Well considering that there are some cities in the world with larger populations then say the entire population of Sweden I think saying they are countries with a relatively small population is a fair way of putting it.

Swedish population - around 9 million, population of Denmark around 5 million, population of Australia 20 million, Canada 32 million, population of London - 7 million, population of New York - 8 million, population of Mumbai - 12 million.

Well, what does constitute a country with a "large" population, then? The US is dwarfed by both China and India.

Must admit I didn't realize that Canada's population was so large.

And they all - almost - are close to the 'Merican border.

 

[firecoins]

Must admit I didn't realize that Canada's population was so large.

When you talk about Canada does that include Quebec or not?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/11/23/canada.quebec.ap/index.html

 

[Marc L]

Why not? When is democracy not a "good thing"?

"Tyranny of the majority," as someone else pointed out, isn't a good thing. Pretend for a minute the US was really a democracy (it isn't), do you think we'd have made the strides we have in Civil Rights? After the Civil War, blacks couldn't even vote, so, why would the government have even bothered acknowledging their equality?

Beyond that, to coin an old cliche, what is popular isn't always right. I know it's bad form to trot out Hitler, but it's true. He was elected into office. Another example I've heard is back in Athens where the majority of citizens voted to put Socrates (or Aristotle, I don't remember which) to death because he doubted the gods.

In a small group of people, democracy works fine. As your group gets larger, it gets harder and harder to get things done. There're 300 million people in the US, can you imagine the majority of our voters agreeing on anything? Heck, look at Congress-there're only about 550 (I think 535, but I'm too lazy to look it up. Suffice it to say, there's not that many people there) Congresspeople-look how long it takes for them to get stuff done.

It's better to have a framework (like our Constitution) which one can use to base future decisions off of. Having a small group of people represent a larger group (like our Congress) enables things to get done a lot faster. No, I'm not saying that the US has the best form of government.* It's still better than an absolute democracy, imo.

*The best form of government would be with me as Supreme Overlord of the Universe. I have experience. I've been playing the Civilization series since it came out

Marc

 

[CFLarsen]

"Tyranny of the majority," as someone else pointed out, isn't a good thing. Pretend for a minute the US was really a democracy (it isn't), do you think we'd have made the strides we have in Civil Rights? After the Civil War, blacks couldn't even vote, so, why would the government have even bothered acknowledging their equality?

Beyond that, to coin an old cliche, what is popular isn't always right. I know it's bad form to trot out Hitler, but it's true. He was elected into office. Another example I've heard is back in Athens where the majority of citizens voted to put Socrates (or Aristotle, I don't remember which) to death because he doubted the gods.

And a majority of jurors can condemn someone to death in the US. Now what?

In a small group of people, democracy works fine. As your group gets larger, it gets harder and harder to get things done. There're 300 million people in the US, can you imagine the majority of our voters agreeing on anything? Heck, look at Congress-there're only about 550 (I think 535, but I'm too lazy to look it up. Suffice it to say, there's not that many people there) Congresspeople-look how long it takes for them to get stuff done.

Can you define how small a population has to be, in order for a democracy to work?

It's better to have a framework (like our Constitution) which one can use to base future decisions off of.

But, what happens when that constitution becomes outdated? You will need a majority - that is, a democracy - to change it.

Having a small group of people represent a larger group (like our Congress) enables things to get done a lot faster. No, I'm not saying that the US has the best form of government.* It's still better than an absolute democracy, imo.

Having a democratically elected parliament is exactly the same as having the US Congress.

*The best form of government would be with me as Supreme Overlord of the Universe. I have experience. I've been playing the Civilization series since it came out

Marc

I always end up starving people...

 

[Kerberos]

"Tyranny of the majority," as someone else pointed out, isn't a good thing. Pretend for a minute the US was really a democracy (it isn't), do you think we'd have made the strides we have in Civil Rights? After the Civil War, blacks couldn't even vote, so, why would the government have even bothered acknowledging their equality?

Wasn't the civil rights movement a popular movement?

Beyond that, to coin an old cliche, what is popular isn't always right. I know it's bad form to trot out Hitler, but it's true. He was elected into office.

It's partially true, there were... Iregularities,

In a small group of people, democracy works fine. As your group gets larger, it gets harder and harder to get things done. There're 300 million people in the US, can you imagine the majority of our voters agreeing on anything? Heck, look at Congress-there're only about 550 (I think 535, but I'm too lazy to look it up. Suffice it to say, there's not that many people there) Congresspeople-look how long it takes for them to get stuff done.

It's better to have a framework (like our Constitution) which one can use to base future decisions off of. Having a small group of people represent a larger group (like our Congress) enables things to get done a lot faster. No, I'm not saying that the US has the best form of government.* It's still better than an absolute democracy, imo.

The report is based on representative democracy and includes civil rights in the definition.