What about Great Britain? France? Germany? Japan? Australia? Is their experience of democracy truer, finer, less laden with crimes against humanity, etc. — Bitter Crank

Yeah right. But they probably like to think they are.

I would say that a through h are all approximately true, but none of them negate the fact of democracy. It's a crap democracy where the politicians truly represent the people - greedy, ignorant, short-sighted, vindictive, self-serving and corrupt.

There is nothing inherently decent about democracy. At the moment, I'd say Germany is doing a bit better than most, but that may be because it is less democratic, I'm not sure.

I would say that a through h are all approximately true, but none of them negate the fact of democracy. It's a crap democracy where the politicians truly represent the people - greedy, ignorant, shot-sighted, vindictive, self-serving and corrupt. — unenlightened

Problem is, what's the alternative? Either you have input from the general population, or a select few get to run it. Either way, it's still people - greedy, ignorant, short-sighted, vindictive, self-serving and corrupt. Just a matter of whether you think a few humans are better or worse than a lot. I think history sides with a lot being the less bad choice, provided there are appropriate balances built in.

As to the OP, I'd say the worst problem with US government is the large amount of monied interests corrupting the system.

I suppose I look at it as a fledgling democracy where all the things you listed are true, to some degree, about it. I don't know if I'd say that each of those destroys democratic practice. Stupidity or "being hoodwinked", for instance, aren't part of the vocabulary of democratic practice. It may be true, but that's not something which makes a social system democratic is what I mean by that. Stupid people, hoodwinked people all have equal say in democratic social systems. I'm not so sure that party structures, even, subvert democratic practice. You have to be able to organize interests, especially in representative forms of democracy.

Corruption, wealth assymetry, and low turnout, so I would say, reflect the degradation of democratic values. The system, due to these influences, becomes less democratic. That's because each of these subverts the process where the majority beliefs of people are not represented, and the rights of people as both citizens and individuals are violated. So I supposed I'd lay the blame there for why the U.S. isn't democratic.

But, at the same time -- and even including the countries you have listed -- it seems to me that these are all fledgling democracies. It's not like any social system is born perfected. Considering where I lay the blame -- representative politics and property rights -- it's clear that these democracies would have to be reformulated at a pretty basic level. Since, in the US at least, those aren't looked at as bugs, but features of the political system. Still, I wouldn't discard democracy just because some greedy adventurers from way back when got it wrong.

I'll try to give this a go, but I'm not too sure the questions always really apply...

a. Its history of systematic discrimination, deliberate genocide, imperialism?

Uhh... Austria... it's been around for 1000+ years, so it's kind of hard to fit an answer into such a short form. It has sort of had it all.

Austria had kings and queens going into the 20th century (now it is no longer allowed to hold or use such titles - Germany is a bit different). They once had an empire under this royal reign. They sided with the 'bad guys' in WWI and WWII... and indeed had concentration camps, killing Jews, blacks, gays and gypsies (a lot of gypsies).

Currently if one denies this history, especially the 'holocaust' they can receive a prison sentence, as doing so is a crime. Possession of any symbolic images of this history is a crime as well.

At the moment, we are just under 9 million people living in a very small nation. Indeed discrimination is around us, but considering that we have 9 borders and 11 different languages than German to be found within those neighboring countries, we have diversity whether we like it or not.


b. Low voter turn out and citizen apathy?

My first experience here some 24 years ago was at a ski vacation week where a lot of high school kids were attending. When the nightly news came on during dinner the room was silent. Everyone listened and to my amazement the discussion following the news were a great bit about what was just in the news reports. This was a group of 13 to 17 year olds, about 50 of them.

Indeed this has changed a bit, but the youth as well as the adults are somewhat news savvy and informed. If it helps, we have no 'news networks' like FOX News. That would be illegal here.

Also, I have noticed that news in the USA (even non-FOX) has lots of emotional commentary mixed in with news. We do not have that here. The reports report things quite neutral. It's information and not commentary and when indeed commentary is bought out in the news, they let you know that this is indeed commentary.

As for voter turnout... we consider it to be recently 'lowisch'. The recent vote in Vienna had a 74.8% turn out. IT has been in the lower 60's and the high 80's, but nothing like in the USA.

Keep in mind...

Austria votes on Sunday and not Tuesday. Also, if the vote is really huge and there is a possible event that causes problems with Sunday, they can make it both Saturday and Sunday. We'd never consider a vote on a weekday or especially a working day.

c. Republicans / Democrats subvert it?

I'm not really sure what this means or what exactly you are asking.

We really don't have parties that resemble either of the two you have mentioned.

The SPÖ has been the dominate party for many years now. They are a social party (not socialist) and for the most part represent the working classes (except farmers). They have lost a lot in the last 15 years due to stagnation and the presence of professional politicians who appear to be more interested in their own position that actually doing jobs well for the general public.

The ÖVP was the other strong party, but actually has really taken a beating. I have never quite wrapped my head around this, but they are the party of bigger business, somewhat conservative values (yet more liberal that USA Democrats) and the party the farmers tend(ed) to support (very odd). They have more or less committed political suicide in recent year, starting with the obvious ambition to be the ruling party some 16+ years ago where they went into a coalition with the FPÖ (I'll address them soon). This exposed them as being simply politically ambitious and has cost them a lot of votes.

The FPÖ... I have to be careful here. I consider them to be Nazis. They are a populist party that basically runs on fears and slander (nothing to the level of USA political slander, but still slander). The man who put them into the forefront was Jörg Haider. He (had the good taste to) died in an auto accident before all of the scandals could stick to him. Unfortunately with the recent wave of conservative fear and financial issues in the EU they have gain on popularity. The main core of their voters are the old Nazis, bitter low class, the uneducated, and a lot of the unemployable youth. The leaders even appear in low class discos to find support. They are Nationalists and just have a great legal team to clean up their messes. IT is sort of like the Tea Party or the UKIPS (of Great Britain), but with a slick used car salesman approach.

The Greens... exactly what you suspect them to be, but with somewhat more applicable and relevant programs. They have moved in many places to the #3 and even #2 party behind the SPÖ.

The Neos... (nothing to do with Nazis) liberal with politics, conservative with economics. They are a party that encourages education and taking up responsibility. They also would pull out the social support nets of these who appear to simply use the system. They have made fast impact and have gained enough support to have a voice beyond simply criticism on lobbying. They are something to watch out for, but I really don't know enough as of yet to say much about them.

There are another 3 to 6 parties that do gain support, but it depends upon what level of government you are speaking of and none of these have made it into a National Parlament.

This might be interesting...

... Austria has nearly no lobbies. There are only 3 or 4 main groups that have some impact, but upon very specific issues.

As for political campaigns:

The amount of money they can use for a campaign is very limited. There can be no direct slander. They also only are allowed to promote for an election about 6 or 7 months prior to the election. In short... limited bombardment of campaigning.

d. Are Americans too stupid (well, poorly educated--that's kinder) to make intelligent political decisions?

I don't know.

I find that most of them tend to know very little about what it is they are voting for, but then again there seems to be very little actual information out there for them to work with, as most of it is slander and meaningless platitudes.

Americans seem to be very busy simply living and working and they have more concerns than Austrians do. We have guaranteed housing, near free university education, universal high quality health care, a still functioning retirement system... now indeed many of these programs might be for some 'bare bones', but it is far more than the USA system of 'you are on your own'.

Perhaps the interest in government might have to do with seeing the government making a positive and direct contribution in the lives of the citizens. Our taxes are very high, but everyone gets something for that they are paying; thus it is not too bad.

As for stupid... I feel that the youth of today in Austria are as stupid as it can get. Indeed they have information and have learned things (nearly all in theory), but fail in the ability to connect the dots, take responsibility, make an effort beyond the minimum or apply information and ability beyond specialized fields... in short, they lack basic logic. It seems at time that there are a few who are able, but in the sea of the unable they are far to few and far between. Instead of making an effort to do better, they just lower the bar to the point anyone can crawl over it if they happen to be pushed in that general direction.

e. The asymmetrical distribution of wealth?

Austria does have an asymmetrical distribution of wealth, but why it works is simple. The rich here are not as rich as the USA rich and the poor here are not as poor as the USA poor.

I believe our social politics has a lot to do with that being the case.

f. Paralyzed political system?

Again... I don't really know what you mean.

I need more info.

g. The public has been hoodwinked, hornswaggled, and bamboozled by clever PR and advertising technicians?

Hard to say...

... Austria does not have commercials like you do in the USA. Political TV commercials do not exist.

We do have other commercials on TV, but usually in a 30 to 40 minute show there is a maximum of 1 commercial block (if any at all) and if the show is longer or if it is a network from Germany there might be a few more. The shorter sitcoms and stuff never have a single commercial break. Funny thing is a lot of the commercials are about upcoming shows on that networks.

h. Capitalism run amok; rampant corruption of politics?

I'd need a standard of measure for 'amok'. Indeed there is a large degree of a 'free market' here, could be considered capitalism, but how much is 'amok'... ???

We have corruption like any political system has, but our political system is far more transparent than in the USA. It's a small country. There just aren't too many places to hide.

Maybe regarding this... size matters... as in the smaller the better it is to manage and the easier it is to keep it all in perspective.

Meow!

GREG

The Princenton Study being here:

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

Is the USA a real democracy, a failed democracy, a fake democracy, or never was such a thing from the beginning? Is your country any better? — Bitter Crank

I'd say that the USA is a limited or partial democracy, i.e. democratic in some respects, but not others. Just like the UK, where I've lived all my life.

I think that the UK is better in one relevant respect, namely that it's not as much of a two-party system as the USA, or not in quite the same sense. Here, there are a multitude of lesser parties with varying degrees of influence. The two major parties are the Conservative party and the Labour party, but other parties that have been influential in recent history are the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, and UKIP. I think that the UK is therefore more representative in that respect.

I think that the current form of somewhat representative democracy hasn't been - and isn't - representative enough in important respects. For example, we're meant to vote for parties based on their manifesto for the upcoming election, yet subsequent to election, we almost inevitably get u-turns.

Regarding your list, I agree with others that there's some truth to many items listed, however there are also some issues. Low voter turnout definitely effects how representative a democracy is; as can corruption. And any act by goverment without sufficient public support is undemocratic in my book. However, historical aspects can be less relevant the further back in time we go. And I don't see the financial status or intelligence of citizens as being particularly relevant, since whether you're dumb or bright, rich or poor, you can still vote. Bad democratic votes are still democratic.

I think that the influence on government from, e.g. big business, the media, and certain organisations can often be undemocratic. (Cf. The Establishment: And how they get away with it).

Three good examples, small to large:

A bond issue for a new school failed four times in my small "home town" (where I have not lived in 50 years). Are the locals troglodytes who were against education? Not at all. The residents correctly perceived that a new school was needed, BUT the plan offered by the school district was loaded with a property enhancement scheme for a single property owner. The People weren't against the school, but they were against the deal whereby the property owner (a resident of the town) would benefit excessively (and in terms of property values, exclusively). A new school was needed, but the same plan kept being presented for a vote. Eventually fatigue and need won out. The property (outside the city boundary) was built and the development of land went forward.

The major league sports teams in Minneapolis (NBA, NFL, MLB) have all wanted the city to built them new stadiums. The Twins were first in 1979. It went up with little objection, much at public expense. But it was relatively cheap. Then the NBA wanted a new court. They succeeded in getting a multi-use facility which, I think, the city owns. Then the Twins grew tired of their 30 year old facility which they had been sharing with the Vikings and whined, cajoled, threatened, pleaded, contemplated suicide over, until another bond issue was proposed. The citizens of Minneapolis rejected the bond issue but it was re-presented, "once more with feeling" (lots of pressure) and it passed. The Twins own the stadium.

In the next election a referendum was passed by a landslide prohibiting more than $10 million being spent on new stadiums WITHOUT public approval. Next the Vikings wanted a new stadium. The creep who owns the team is a billionaire property developer. A proposal to spend something like half a billion of public funds on a new stadium was roundly defeated. End of story? Not at all. Property interests went to the legislature and managed to get the Minneapolis law overridden. Next chapter: the state approved the stadium for the Vikings ($1 billion plus) much of it at city expense -- i.e., paid for by taxpayers who emphatically declared they didn't want to have it or pay for it. So, we got it shoved up our asses even though we had clearly rejected it. The Vikings own the stadium.

Who is next? Soccer. Fortunately for Minneapolis the stadium is located in St. Paul and is not expected to cost more than mere tens of millions. The facility is part of a large property redevelopment which the city government wants. (The property used to be a mass transit bus garage next to the freeway.)

Then who? Hockey. Then who? The Werewolves will be back for a new publicly funded court. Then who? Badminton? LaCrosse? Croquet? Bowling? There must be some rich family who owns a sports team that hasn't sucked off our public teat yet.

The public considers Social Security about as sacrosanct as the Holy of Holies and God Himself. None the less, Congress has been systematically avoiding changes in funding which would be entirely feasible. Instead the COTUS has piddled around and entertained various proposals which would essentially set up a shit house in this holiest of holies. Turning it over to the stock market, or letting it shrivel up, or making the poor pay for it are the best ideas they can come up with. Limiting benefits for those already very wealthy and secure, and increasing the SS tax on those who are flush in the lap of luxury have been non-starters. Swiping social security funds to pay for other stuff, of course, has been going on for a long time. Disability programs aren't very popular in COTUS or the rich.

The very rich and privileged look at social security and disability (never mind welfare) programs like a New York Times cartoon showing Ben Carson looking at a Roman aqueduct and denouncing it as "The socialist Romans used these to hand out water to their lazy, freeloading citizens."

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2012/07/08/opinion/sunday/the-strip.html?ref=sunday#1

Perhaps it's a 'Let's Pretend Democracy' that was formerly an oligarchy. It was designed to be a democracy where votes were restricted to the wealthy. Then the masses demanded votes, and it became a "Let's Pretend Democracy."

Is your country any better? — Bitter Crank

Of course. Thus you should try to mimic us.

Start with going to the sauna. Like the US Ambassador to our country did:

The USA is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, but it has incorporated representational democracy as part of its structure. Currently, there are a lot of problems maintaining our present civil rights, but at least I can say that in the USA, we probably have the greatest protections regarding freedom of speech that one can find among any nation.

we probably have the greatest protections regarding freedom of speech that one can find among any nation — LD Saunders

It does: Americans more tolerant of offensive speech than others in the world

Top 10:

1. U.S.
2. Poland
3. Spain
4. Mexico
5. Venezuela
6. Canada
7. Australia
8. Argentina
9. South Africa
10. UK

Edit: Actually, this is a report on what the people think, not on what the laws allow.

I think the Press Freedom Index is a more appropriate measure?

U.S. ranks 43rd. Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark take the top 4.

Bloody Nordic countries. Always on top.

To me the question whether something is a democracy or not or to what extent is the wrong question. Democracy in and off itself is not and should not be the goal; it's about a just and fair society. The political system should produce fair and just results, which can very much mean that, for instance, Singapore is a better society than the Netherlands.

The form, shape and size of government is arbitrary and as such we are free to mould it in any way we see fit. This is the power people have. That even the most repressive government depends on the acceptance or acquiescence of its constituency. Given the arbitrary nature of government, it should then be judged, not by the principles on which it is based, but on the consequences and social facts it creates.

Put differently, democratic principles are useless if they do not affect or sustain a just and fair society.

I think most Western democracies are morally bankrupt in that the economy has become a goal in itself instead of a means for a society to flourish and as a result money has become power (even more than it used to be).

Yes, notice the Scandinavian countries are not involved in the first study you cited, probably to give the others a chance.

never was such a thing from the beginning — Bitter Crank

This. We are a Republic, if we can keep it, as Franklin said. The founders didn't have nice things to say about democracy, and with good reason, in my opinion.

a. Its history of systematic discrimination, deliberate genocide, imperialism?
b. Low voter turn out and citizen apathy?
c. Republicans / Democrats subvert it?
d. Are Americans too stupid (well, poorly educated--that's kinder) to make intelligent political decisions?
e. The asymmetrical distribution of wealth?
f. Paralyzed political system?
g. The public has been hoodwinked, hornswaggled, and bamboozled by clever PR and advertising technicians?
h. Capitalism run amok; rampant corruption of politics? — Bitter Crank

None of these. It's because we were never designed as a democracy.

The USA does have the greatest speech protections in the world. As an American, I won't even go to Europe, because I could easily be prosecuted for saying something that in the USA would be no problem at all. Just compare the actual substance of the laws, and avoid all polling data, which can easily be manipulated.

I'd have a few people run it, but randomly selected from the population with incentives for corruption mitigated in deliberate ways.