NationStates Jolt Archive

I personally feel that European democracy is better than US democracy, even though I am a US citizen. US democracy only gives you two political parties that are almost the same thing. In Europe, there is multitudes of parties.

Screw both of them, Athenian Democracy is the winner. [/jk] Although i am fond of direct democracy...

Honestly, I like the two party system best. The only downside is that the country is becoming increasin gly polarized.

I personally feel that European democracy is better than US democracy, even though I am a US citizen. US democracy only gives you two political parties that are almost the same thing. In Europe, there is multitudes of parties.

The political systems in Europe vary from country to country. I would advise you to be more specific about which nation's democracies you are impressed by.

So my only choice is between is between full blown bourgeois capitalism and watery social-liberal bourgeois capitalism?

No choice their friend.

Both are miserable, as they are completely divorced from any actual kind of independent social or spiritual authority. I prefer something more like the Estates-General or other early councils of the middle ages, in which one could not be taxed without consent but rather kings essentially had to beg for subsidy.

I like the system of parliamentary democracy, generally found in Europe (with variations), over the presidential system found in the USA, certainly. Apart from that, you have to be more specific.

Both are miserable, as they are completely divorced from any actual kind of independent social or spiritual authority. I prefer something more like the Estates-General or other early councils of the middle ages, in which one could not be taxed without consent but rather kings essentially had to beg for subsidy.

Theres a reason that feudalism fell.

Both are miserable, as they are completely divorced from any actual kind of independent social or spiritual authority. I prefer something more like the Estates-General or other early councils of the middle ages, in which one could not be taxed without consent but rather kings essentially had to beg for subsidy.
The Netherlands still has an Estates-General.

I personally feel that European democracy is better than US democracy, even though I am a US citizen. US democracy only gives you two political parties that are almost the same thing. In Europe, there is multitudes of parties.Depends on the country.

I personally feel that European democracy is better than US democracy, even though I am a US citizen. US democracy only gives you two political parties that are almost the same thing. In Europe, there is multitudes of parties.

Europe has the ECHR, which is meant to protect human rights, in order to maintain and strengthen democracy, as the ECHR defines it. What does the US have, and is it any good?

Theres a reason that feudalism fell.
Yes, the Black Death.

Sorry, maybe I missed something, but are you seriously suggesting that all European 'democracies' are broadly the same?

'Europe' as a coherent entity exists only in the minds of fantasists. You only have to look at the UK and France to realise this.

Sorry, maybe I missed something, but are you seriously suggesting that all European 'democracies' are broadly the same?

'Europe' as a coherent entity exists only in the minds of fantasists. You only have to look at the UK and France to realise this.

All are bound by the ECHR. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHR)

I personally feel that European democracy is better than US democracy, even though I am a US citizen. US democracy only gives you two political parties that are almost the same thing. In Europe, there is multitudes of parties.

Swiss democracy w/ American style of freedom of speech FTW!

Europe has the ECHR, which is meant to protect human rights, in order to maintain and strengthen democracy, as the ECHR defines it. What does the US have, and is it any good?

It has a Bill of Rights. It doesn't need much else.

The EU is a close political union of soveriegn nations. The US is a federation of non-soveriegn bodies. It's one country, so it doesn't need a special documetn or agency to check up on each state to make sure they're not abusing human rights.

It also doesn't have to worry about strenghtening domestic democracy. It's already a democracy. Each state was admitted as a democracy of varying sorts. There's not much left to do.

All are bound by the ECHR. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHR)
Yes. And what relevance does this have when comparing 'democracies'?

It has a government. It doesn't need much else.

The EU is a close political union of soveriegn nations. The US is a federation of non-soveriegn bodies. It's one country, so it doesn't need a special agency to check up on each state to make sure they're not abusing human rights.
Cool... are human rights very well protected in the US?

Yes. And what relevance does this have when comparing 'democracies'?Quite a lot. Because if human rights are not okay, democracy desn't work very well. I think it is reasonable to speak of "european democracy", because the level of democracy in europe is broadly similar in the european states. With a few exceptions, like Russia.

I'm Dashanzi, just can't be bothered to change identity on the forums right now.

Human rights =/= democracy

The UK, for instance, has a very different democratic system to, say, Germany. And the US, come to that. And any talk of European harmonisation falls apart as soon as , for example, France worries about agricultural reform.

Yes, human rights are at the core of most European politics. But I don't think they're absent from US politics. So... I'm confused. What's your point?

(not aggressive, just trying to understand)

Screw both of them, Athenian Democracy is the winner. [/jk] Although i am fond of direct democracy...

Honestly, I like the two party system best. The only downside is that the country is becoming increasin gly polarized.

That's silly. The two party system is the reason the US is in the shape it's in. I should know, I'm writing a paper on it.

I'm Dashanzi, just can't be bothered to change identity on the forums right now.

Human rights =/= democracy

The UK, for instance, has a very different democratic system to, say, Germany. And the US, come to that. And any talk of European harmonisation falls apart as soon as , for example, France worries about agricultural reform.

Yes, human rights are at the core of most European politics. But I don't think they're absent from US politics. So... I'm confused. What's your point?

(not aggressive, just trying to understand)

My point is, to put it simply,

.....that an efficient human rights system is a prerequisite for an efficient democracy. And I think human rights are not very good in the US now. Therefor European democracy is better.

Even though the european states have different democratic systems, most of them have the obligation to maintain the human rights protected by the ECHR. However they go about it.

I personally feel that European democracy is better than US democracy, even though I am a US citizen. US democracy only gives you two political parties that are almost the same thing. In Europe, there is multitudes of parties.

In pure political theory, I like American Democracy better, but I hate the fact that our country's policies are virtually rule by a skewed, biased, and overly powerful media.

Theres a reason that feudalism fell.

Yes, because people bought into the insane ideas of warmongers and megalomaniacs out of fear and misinformation, promulgated by intellectuals who wished to suckle at the statist teat.

The Netherlands still has an Estates-General.

And England still has a House of Lords. Neither represent independent social authority.

From what I understood ... the 2 parties in the US, are pretty much almost the same... Both want more money for the military, to industrialize, raise taxes. Just some slight accent differences here and there on which the media exaggurates.

So in that light I by far prefer the european system with multiple parties, inspired by a stronger ideology (socialism, liberalism, nationalism, christianity, extremist right-wing, communism, ecologists, humanists, etc.)...

Compared to the EU democracy ... It's pretty hard to actually call the US democracy, still a democracy ;p

In pure political theory, I like American Democracy better, but I hate the fact that our country's policies are virtually rule by a skewed, biased, and overly powerful media.
I feel exactly the same. But you shouldn't worry too much, because as the internet gains more power, the media will start to lose power and parties won't be as concerned about getting money so they can have commercials, instead they will be worried about having a platform that appeals to the people. Not only that, but people will stop paying as much attention to the overly biased news, and will base their opinions on fact! :D And while this seems like a stretch , it is very possible!

I feel exactly the same. But you shouldn't worry too much, because as the internet gains more power, the media will start to lose power and parties won't be as concerned about getting money so they can have commercials, instead they will be worried about having a platform that appeals to the people. Not only that, but people will stop paying as much attention to the overly biased news, and will base their opinions on fact! :D And while this seems like a stretch , it is very possible!
Only if net neutrality succeeds. Support the EFF (http://www.eff.org/)!

I feel exactly the same. But you shouldn't worry too much, because as the internet gains more power, the media will start to lose power and parties won't be as concerned about getting money so they can have commercials, instead they will be worried about having a platform that appeals to the people. Not only that, but people will stop paying as much attention to the overly biased news, and will base their opinions on fact! :D And while this seems like a stretch , it is very possible!

*(is big business)*

*stops buying commercials to brainwash consumer mob*

*establishes interweb rumour-spreader-service to brainwash consumer mob*

*considers consumer mob better brainwashed now*

*considers consumer mob better brainwashed now*
How could the internet brainwash the consumer mob? History has shown that as idea spreaders become available to the common man, governments become less corrupt. Let's use books as an example. At first books were hand written, and few could read them. The corrupt officials of the Catholic church used the fact that almost no one could read or afford the bible to brainwash people for years. Bible gets translated, printing press comes out and suddenly everyone is interpreting the bible their own way. The Catholic church initiates the counter reformation and the corrupt church leaders are kicked out of the church, therefore making the Catholic church less corrupt. Same thing with television. No one can afford to buy a commercial, therefore only the rich can run for political office. The rich use their position to protect their own wealth. As the internet increases in popularity, more people will be able to afford things like commercials, as sites like Youtube are free. This will either lead to potentially anyone able to run for presidency, or the breakdown of the 2 party system. Either way, the ability to spread and interpret ideas will spread to the common man.

I personally feel that European democracy is better than US democracy, even though I am a US citizen. US democracy only gives you two political parties that are almost the same thing. In Europe, there is multitudes of parties.

If you're talking about countries in Europe, you need to be specific. Some are more democratic than others. If you're talking about the European Union itself, that's so undemocratic it's not even funny. Either way - STOP REFERRING TO EUROPE LIKE IT'S ONE BIG COUNTRY!

Hurts our feelings, it does.

Both are miserable, as they are completely divorced from any actual kind of independent social or spiritual authority. I prefer something more like the Estates-General or other early councils of the middle ages, in which one could not be taxed without consent but rather kings essentially had to beg for subsidy.

You do realize that back then, a lot of people could barely afford their food, right?

The US is a federation of non-soveriegn bodies. It's one country, so it doesn't need a special documetn or agency to check up on each state to make sure they're not abusing human rights. .

The US Supreme Court would disagree with you. They've long held to the theory of parallel sovereignty. I'd also disagree with you. I can tell you for a fact that Michigan and Canada are far more alike than Michigan and Texas. We're really not one country, no matter how much we'd like to be.

Two parties suck. Anyone who likes that is deranged. It makes the field too limited. We need to open it up to as many parties as possible and force coalitions so all ideas get a chance. In a two party system, ideas are squelched and members feel obliged to vote with their party most of the time.

US Democracy...Isn't that an oxymoron?

Two parties suck. Anyone who likes that is deranged. It makes the field too limited. We need to open it up to as many parties as possible and force coalitions so all ideas get a chance. In a two party system, ideas are squelched and members feel obliged to vote with their party most of the time.

US Democracy...Isn't that an oxymoron?
But more parties wouldn't be stable, remember! It was allowing multiple parties that caused the governments of some nations to collapse! Our democracy has remained stable throughout its history...why risk the stability?*

*The above is an actual argument from my father, though paraphrased somewhat.

You do realize that back then, a lot of people could barely afford their food, right?

There are still quite a number of people who can't afford their food, even today. This matter obviously correlates to technological and capital stock. Seeing as how the Middle Ages took place before the Industrial Revolution, wherein there was productive capacity to handle the various ills that were otherwise on the margin, it is easily deduced that the relative poverty of that era concerns just the same thing.

There are still quite a number of people who can't afford their food, even today. This matter obviously correlates to technological and capital stock. Seeing as how the Middle Ages took place before the Industrial Revolution, wherein there was productive capacity to handle the various ills that were otherwise on the margin, it is easily deduced that the relative poverty of that era concerns just the same thing.

I disagree, the breaking up of feudalism, the system you are essentially embracing, is a major cause in the accumulation of technology. Italy, which had not felt the effects of feudalism as much as other parts of Europe, was the first to break out from the Middle Ages. As people moved into the cities, the autonomy of lords was weakened, and in those cities, science and art flourished.

Later, the absolutists encouraged science as well. They saw it as a way to gain more control over their country, and to gain an edge over other nations. Not only did they help break up the feudal system, but they helped bring about the increased prosperity of today.

Later still, Napolean destroyed what was left of feudalism. Under his reign, much science occurred. People got jobs from merit, not blood. And because of this, he was successful. All of Europe had to adapt if it were to compete with France.

So basically, if you enjoy the internet, television, cars, and just about all the other things we have in the modern world, you have to give credit to the centralization of power.

I disagree, the breaking up of feudalism, the system you are essentially embracing, is a major cause in the accumulation of technology. Italy, which had not felt the effects of feudalism as much as other parts of Europe, was the first to break out from the Middle Ages. As people moved into the cities, the autonomy of lords was weakened, and in those cities, science and art flourished.

Italy's flourishing, just like that of the Netherlands, Flanders, Champagne, Bruges, Antwerp, Amsterdam, and the German Free Cities were not a result of centralism. Rather, they were the result of independence from large scale authority; Champagne, for example, flourished because of its relative independence from the King of France thanks to the Counts of Champagne, and the German Free Cities from the Emperor. England succeeded because the aristocracy, whom you defame, kept the king's power from expanding like it did in other places which would soon be weighed down by the State. It was specifically because of local, independent social authorities, like the Count of Champagne, the House of Lords, and the burghers of Germany that there was any flourishing whatsoever. This is part of the polycentric authority, i.e. feudalism, of the Middle Ages that was essential for prosperity, that there was independent social and spiritual authority.

If what you are saying is true, that the destruction of these independent authorities is necessary for prosperity, then those bastions of centralism, Russia, Spain, and the Ottomans would have dominated all of their opponents. Quite obviously, they did not.

Later, the absolutists encouraged science as well. They saw it as a way to gain more control over their country, and to gain an edge over other nations. Not only did they help break up the feudal system, but they helped bring about the increased prosperity of today.

It was the Catholic Church, an independent spiritual authority, that built the wisdom of the Western World, not the State. The economics of the Late Scholastics, the copying of manuscripts, the establishment of independent universities (whose intellectual freedom would be eliminated by the central state), and the construction of the most precise solar observatories in the cathedrals in places such as Bologna, Rome, Paris, and Florence are simply the tip of the iceberg. The Benedictine monks did a great deal of scientific research as well, such as harnessing water power and breeding healthier livestock. This, along with the Church's opposition to central authority by kings and charity work, shows the great contributions not of the state but of independent authority.

(And before you try and say, "But they persecuted Galileo", I will respond that the problem the Church had with Galileo was that he was making wild suppositions, not all of which were true; he claimed that the orbits of heavenly bodies were circular because that is what his philosophy told him, not because he had observed them.)

Later still, Napolean destroyed what was left of feudalism. Under his reign, much science occurred. People got jobs from merit, not blood. And because of this, he was successful. All of Europe had to adapt if it were to compete with France.

Napoleon was a bloodthirsty monster who cemented conscription and total warfare, and set the stage for the absolute destruction of freedom. By destroying independent spiritual and social authority, he ensured the rise of the totalitarian state, against which other nations would threaten their population in order to establish their own apparatus of coercion.

So basically, if you enjoy the internet, television, cars, and just about all the other things we have in the modern world, you have to give credit to the centralization of power.

That I have these things at all, with the totalitarian state pulling back economic development, is a wonder. Rather, I would say if I enjoy massive taxation, crippling regulation, total war, conscription, and depreciation of the money supply, I would have to give thanks to the centralization of power.

Which, obviously, I don't.

I personally feel that European democracy is better than US democracy, even though I am a US citizen. US democracy only gives you two political parties that are almost the same thing. In Europe, there is multitudes of parties.

Which European democracy? They range from Swiss democracy to British democracy, with the Swiss being the most democratic I can think of on the planet, and the British being very much like the US in it's effective 2-party-system.
Personally, I like the German version and the Irish version.

And England still has a House of Lords. Neither represent independent social authority.
I know. I was being faecetious.

And for future reference, England =/= United Kingdom.

Yes, because people bought into the insane ideas of warmongers and megalomaniacs out of fear and misinformation, promulgated by intellectuals who wished to suckle at the statist teat.

Or maybe because the 90% common people thought that the nobility and clergy (10%) didn't deserve more power than the majority? You are quite fascinating though, almost a complete embodiment of a reactionary... fascinating, it's like you've got out of a time machine from the ancien regime yesterday and discovered this horrible world, oblivious to all scientific, medical and knowledge breakthroughs previously stagnated under the iron boot of you're 'social or spiritual authority' of Christianity.

You seem to be fighting against the waves of history friend, against socio-economic development of reality itself. You see feudalism fails because it's out of date, the only reason it existed is because of the inability of the monarch to govern totally, modern advances such as the telephone wire, radio and most importantly the machine-gun had not been developed yet, so naturally the Monarch's power was lessened. The Sun King is a good example, his absolutism is largely a misconception because he didn't have the technological means (the invention of modern bureaucracy and technology) to entrench his absolutism, the idea of the monarch was that his power was absolute and that he didn't consult, his power was de facto.

The centralized state was the natural evolution of socio-economic development, it points not at the system or individual themselves but at the methods and technology which enable a centralized state to operate. You're suggesting that we need to go 'backward' and instate a regime which failed literally because it passed it's used-by date is ludicrous. The economic, social and political coordination and cooperative nature of the modern 'state' is a direct result of this historical development, that is a development for humans to work together getting, to harmonize our interests into a singular common good (a nation), and as time progresses this coordinatism will inevitably advance.

Venndee you're reactionism is quite obvious, and you're desire to restore the real or even perceived conditions of the ancien regime is horrifying to say the least, as it's quite obvious that it represented the greatest socio-economic stagnation in human history. Simply you can't fight history, and you should thank God (whom thanks to science will inevitably be completely disprove as a common superstition) for human solidarity, without such we wouldn't be having this conversation in a common language in a common forum.

It has a Bill of Rights. It doesn't need much else.

The EU is a close political union of soveriegn nations. The US is a federation of non-soveriegn bodies. It's one country, so it doesn't need a special documetn or agency to check up on each state to make sure they're not abusing human rights.

It also doesn't have to worry about strenghtening domestic democracy. It's already a democracy. Each state was admitted as a democracy of varying sorts. There's not much left to do.

I have to disagree.

In the words of Larry Diamond:

“Even liberal democracies fall short of democratic ideals. At the less liberal end of the group they may have serious flaws in their guarantees of personal and associational freedom. And certainly ongoing practices in Italy, Japan, Belgium, France, the United States, and most other industrialized democracies underscore that even long-established and well-institutionalized democracies with the most liberal average freedom scores […] are afflicted with corruption favoritism and unequal access to political power, not to mention voter apathy, cynicism and disengagement.
There is not now and has never been […] a perfect democracy.

It is important then not to take the existence of democracy, even liberal democracy, as a cause for self-congratulation. […] democratic institutions can be improved and deepened or may need to be consolidated; political competition can be made fairer and more open; participation can become more inclusive and vigorous; citizens’ knowledge, resources and competence can grow; elected (and appointed officials can be made more responsive and accountable; civil liberties can be better protected; and the rule of law can become more efficient and secure. […] continued democratic development is a challenge for all countries, including the United States...”

Viewing the US from the outside it has struck me that there are some minor and major flaws in its democratic system. This need not be a major problem, since many of these flaws can be overcome. It worries me, however, that many people seem to believe that the current system is the best system possible, that there is little room for improvement and that it does not need active safeguarding.

The characteristic that baffled me most are partisan officials deciding on voting process and influencing the outcome. I was amazed that the secretary of state of Florida Harris could openly support Bush, and influence the outcome of the Florida count.

Especially since the voting process is regulated by partisan officials, the lack of checks and balances regarding voting procedure and voting machines is especially worrisome. I believe that lacking checks and balances for potential fraud, will eventually lead to fraud.

I have not even spoken of intimidating minorities, the role of funds needed to run for major offices, and the limits of a bi-partisan system. Though I believe the US is an adequate democracy, I find that it could still greatly be improved.

I personally feel that European democracy is better than US democracy, even though I am a US citizen. US democracy only gives you two political parties that are almost the same thing. In Europe, there is multitudes of parties.

Please, tell this to Mr.Veltroni aka "L'Amerikano" (mayor of Rome and leader of the newly-constitued Partito Democratico) - he whishes for a US-style two-party system to replace the italian multiparty democracy.

Screw both of them, Athenian Democracy is the winner. [/jk] Although i am fond of direct democracy...

...aka the Cheese-Banks-And-Chocolate Democracy.

But more parties wouldn't be stable, remember! It was allowing multiple parties that caused the governments of some nations to collapse! Our democracy has remained stable throughout its history...why risk the stability?*

*The above is an actual argument from my father, though paraphrased somewhat.

You could still limit the number of parties by means of an electoral threshold, thereby improving stability. In a plural system parties will enter into coalitions to govern, which does not necessarily lead to instability. Many countries with plural systems are just as stable as those with a two party system.

I prefer the French electoral system, with numerous political parties and two-round elections, to the US one. I find it a lot more democratic.

Of course, its main fault is that we still lack proportional representation.

You could still limit the number of parties by means of an electoral threshold, thereby improving stability. In a plural system parties will enter into coalitions to govern, which does not necessarily lead to instability. Many countries with plural systems are just as stable as those with a two party system.

My ideal system is:

sheer proportional, with no minimum threshold, to elect the parliament: every citizen has to be represented why making laws.

two round system (à la française) to elect the cabinet (the whole cabinet, not just the PM).

NO confidence vote (just impeachment of the ministers), NO legislative power to the executive. That is: strict separation of the governmental branches.

So you get representation (in the parliament) AND stability (in the cabinet).

Neither/nor.

I choose beer.

According to the Bulgarian Driver that picked me up from San Francisco International Airport, he prefers the American style of "Democracy" because things take so long to get decided under their system of government.

Keep in mind that this guy was working as a limo driver, and that I know nothing about Bulgaria. ^^

Keep in mind that this guy was working as a limo driver, and that I know nothing about Bulgaria. ^^
It's the only country where a former monarch has gone on to stand for election as president.

Which is about all I know. :p

Sorry for the non-answer but both are good and both are bad. The US approach is great because it sort of promotes stability and compromise. It is kind of nice to not have huge policy shifts all the time. It is also sort of nice that we have compromises so that if a majority of Americans are not completely happy about US policy at least they are not totally upset.

It is bad because it sort of promotes stability and compromise. There are A LOT of stupid policies that are very hard to change quickly because the system is not really designed to quickly change stupid policies. The one that comes to my mind first is our narcotics policies. I do not think that a lot of people like them or at least would like them if they knew more about them, and I anticipate changes in the future, but not any major ones in the next year or so. In European democracy such changes would likely occur sooner, but the governments are so unstable with their coalitions and votes of no confidence and all that.

I think you get a lot of compromise in European democracy but it does not seem to be as much of a centristic compromise. Instead it seems to be similar to the coalition compromises we get in the USA within our major parties. For example, most Republicans believe that abortion should be legal. About 73% as of the last poll that I read about. However, of those 27% that do believe in criminalizing abortion, they are VERY PASSIONATE about the subject and predominantly belong to the moral majority faction that has allied itself with the Republican party. I am sure that there is something similar in the Democrat party but I am not familiar with intra Democrat politics but I would imagine that MoveOn.com folks or radical socialists might be analagous.

These coalition compromises tend to promote rather extreme conservative or extreme liberal policies than compromises between two major parties which tend to produce more centrist compromises.

According to the Bulgarian Driver that picked me up from San Francisco International Airport, he prefers the American style of "Democracy" because things take so long to get decided under their system of government.

the president has very little power in the US, because he (or she maybe) can't override the goveners, or any one

the president has very little power in the US, because he (or she maybe) can't override the goveners, or any one

I disagree. The President has a lot of power over the enforcement of laws. If a President wants a federal law to not be enforced very much it will not be enforced very much and vice versa. In foreign relations and defense issues he plays an important role as well.

The President may override a Congressional act by vetoing it, however, Congress may override a veto by a supermajority vote.

The President may pardon anyone of a federal crime. I would not say that he has little power. However, I would not say that he has too much power like a dictator.

I personally feel that European democracy is better than US democracy, even though I am a US citizen. US democracy only gives you two political parties that are almost the same thing. In Europe, there is multitudes of parties.

there was a thread a while back where posters in the US said "to vote for a third/independant candidate was to throw your vote away kinda proves it's not the government's fault on how many parties there are, but the people's fault for only supporting two parties.

European democracy by far.

-snip-

Quite simply, your long-winded rant, replete with your tired buzzword ad hominem attacks, is an elaborate appeal to novelty, in that you uncritically judge everything that has happened after one event as progress. This is as vapid your absurd ideology of a mystical and angry spirit of 'the will of the people' punishing the unbelievers who defy it. (This fantasy also happens to include the argumentum ad populam, the fallacy that if something is popular, it is true.)

To put it simply, the State's success is not because of its benefits to mankind. Like any other parasite in nature, it is successful simply because of its fitness in leeching off of the productive. And it is so fit because of its mastery at spreading misinformation and rabid fear through crisis, whether it be through war or anything else, a trap which you have eagerly and unthinkingly fallen into. If it is 'reactionary' not to be fooled just the same, then yes, I am, indeed, a 'reactionary.'

And for future reference, England =/= United Kingdom.

What, does that offend you? :D