MFW US Democracy is now India tier

>MFW US Democracy is now India tier

Other urls found in this thread:

bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/03/21/the-u-s-has-worst-elections-of-any-long-established-democracy-report-finds/
infographics.economist.com/2017/DemocracyIndex/
economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.pdf
nytimes.com/2016/07/30/us/federal-appeals-court-strikes-down-north-carolina-voter-id-provision.html?_r=0
washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/appeals-court-strikes-down-north-carolinas-voter-id-law/2016/07/29/810b5844-4f72-11e6-aa14-e0c1087f7583_story.html?utm_term=.b9384632f1ce
thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/289798-appeals-court-strikes-down-north-carolinas-voter-id-law
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>inb4 "america is not a democracy you retard its a republic"

Top Kek. Atleast India can say they're a population of a billion people or some other shit (no pun intended).

What's America's excuse?

>i have a graph that means i'm right

What exactly is undemocratic about America?

You're also on the same level as Japan, S. Korea and Portugal. What's wrong with that?

>Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy
bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

>The U.S. has ‘worst elections of any long-established democracy,’ report finds
washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/03/21/the-u-s-has-worst-elections-of-any-long-established-democracy-report-finds/

Here is an interactive chart:

infographics.economist.com/2017/DemocracyIndex/

Here are the 60 Indicators:

economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.pdf

we're just glad to not be Australia

It basically breaks the whole idea of "we wuz exception and shit".

>Electoral college has been around literally forever

>This time, because the ***WRONG*** person won, it's all of a sudden a huge disaster and now US democracy is a shithole dictatorship akin to an African country

really makes me think.

Cant waitt to see the collapse of the US

Yay, more bureaucratic dickwaving no one can do jack shit about. Really makes my processor whizz.

what if there won't be a collapse and it only improves?

>these people unironically at some point were the """"""""defenders"""""""" of democracy

yes, my question is why woudl it be downgraded after a candidate won legitimately?

is this another libtard spergout?

>This time, because the ***WRONG*** person won,
>this time

Take that back fatty.

>>this time

What do you mean?
I don't recall anyone sperging out about it in previous years.

I have a feeling that almost no one knew what the electoral college even was before the 2016 election.

my mom says I'm not that fat

>Economist makes hit pieces on trump since 2015
>Is literally owned by the Rothschilds, wikileaks shows emailing between Lynn De Rothschild and Hillary with Lynn praising Hillary
>Hillary loses
>Trump wins
>The economist then arbitrarily downgrades US democracy on their phony map out of butthurt

If you think this is valid you are either one of two things:
1.Butthurt about Trump
2.Dumb as rocks

its probably gonna improve with trump election though

>Muh media shouldn't criticize muh candidate/leader

You're part of the problem

I don't even get why people are so mad about him. It feels like it's just based on completely made up things for the most part.

>WTF TRUMP DIDN'T TELL THE MEDIA HE WAS GOING TO DINNER, LACK OF TRANSPARENCY

>wtf he didn't wave when boarding le plane, wtf i hate trump now

He's not a nazi. He's not going to round blacks and jews up and shoot them, nothing's going to change much jeez

hilarious still thats very overrated

very america friendly Infographic

It was dropped arbitrarily because he won, the owners of the Economist were all Hillary supportersCriticize him all you want, don't fain objectivity and claim we are a less of a democracy because the person you don't like won

>I have a feeling that almost no one knew what the electoral college even was before the 2016 election.
That's because the last person to win using the electoral college was George Bush in 2000.

And yes- it did cause a big commotion then. It's just more prevalent because the internet allows more people to easily voice their opinion.

There's a difference between not criticizing a politician and candidates paying PR hitmen to vehemently demonize the other.

>28. Do ethnic, religious and other minorities have a reasonable degree of autonomy and voice in the political process?
>29. Women in parliament. % of members of parliament who are women

Shit criteria.

Then maybe he shouldn't be sperging out like a fucking child over crowd sizes and his spokespersons shouldn't be saying stupid Orwellian bullshit like "alternative facts".

>It's just more prevalent because the internet allows more people to easily voice their opinion.

Unfortunately that's a double-edged sword in that it allows insane people voice their opinion too. E.g the conspiracy theorist schizoids thinking Hillary Clinton is a satanist and also people who think Trump is a Neo-Nazi who wants to kill Women and Mexicans.

The group who decides this ranking said its because of lack of American's trust in the government. They also said that brexit indicated similar distrust but that doesn't matter because their voter participation in the referendum was slightly higher than average so their meme score went up.

They claimed the election had nothing to do with it and either outcome would have resulted in the downgrade.

>US Democracy is now India tier
>now
Wasn't it always shit. Did anything change or did Indian democracy just improve (lol)

>trump supporters are one person

>democracies
Are any countries democracies? I don't think so.

LOL

Literally Trudeau-tier.

>Trump supporters are incapable of admitting fault without deflecting and pointing to "muh Hillary"

Really juggles the noggin.

The electoral college was always shit

>wtf he didn't wave when boarding le plane, wtf i hate trump now
Ironically what you're talking about actually happened. Pic related when Obama absent mindedly gave a half-assed salute one time.

Yeah but manufactured drama sells. There's so much information that people only want to read the most 'exciting' ones.

You know the fundamentals of a democratic society includes inclusion....

Nope, just challenging your preconceived notion that this estimator is unbiased.

>t. 18 year old

That's assuming that there's Racists/Sexists keeping women and minorities from participating.

Could it all be that women just aren't as interested in politics as men are?

>don't vote for these people because they're the opposing party!!!!
>(((((((democracy))))))))

>Ironically what you're talking about actually happened

I was referring to it happening just recently with trump.

he didn't acknowledge the media when boarding Muh cool plane for the first time and they got butthurt

>just challenging your preconceived notion that this estimator is unbiased.

>Bias

There you go throwing out that word again.

Estonia can never become full democratic because we banned communist parties.

wtf i hate estonia now

TAKE BACK THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION

I think it's more a question of whether there are policies in place that attempts to discourage or disenfranchise certain groups, either directly or indirectly.

Well are there?

Does there being less than a 50/50 split of Gender in cabinet automatically mean it's sexist?

is the alternative just to fit as many women, gays, blacks and other races(but not as important, black and women seems the most crucial and loud races) as possible?

I'll use whatever words I please, this is a biased scale made by someone who is very angry and disappointed with the results of the election. It seems that you are too, but I'm guessing you have more than half a brain under all that anger to realize that the map you posted in your seething rage in the OP is not a reflection of reality

Well Gerrymandering for one and some states were charged recently with attempting to implement voting policies meant to discouraged voting amongst minorities through IDs and attempting to shorten early voting.

>meant to discouraged voting amongst minorities through IDs

How does requiring an ID discourage minorities?

Do minorities not carry IDs in the United States or something?

Are you really so fucking ignorant to suggest I dont carry a fucking ID just because I'm not white? What the fuck is wrong with you people?

>Sent in 2010

On another note, I didn't know the Rothschild controlled everything. It's that kind of conspiracy bullshit that deflects from the issues and moreover discredit free media by dismissing it as something controlled by mysterious actors who often times are ((("""Globalists"""))).

Also isn't that racist as fuck to assume that Minorities have such low IQs they're incapable of remembering to carry an important document with themselves?

That's racist, man.

It's a bit more complicated than that. Let's say blacks carry a certain kind of ID but don't carry another sort of ID. In the case of North Carolina, they basically made it so that they need additional sets of ID that black voters typically didn't carry. It's that sort of subtle suppression tactics.

>On another note, I didn't know the Rothschild controlled everything. It's that kind of conspiracy bullshit that deflects from the issues and moreover discredit free media by dismissing it as something controlled by mysterious actors who often times are ((("""Globalists"""))).

They don't, you wont put words in my mouth and pull me down to your level. They own the largest shares of the economist and Lynn specifically takes care of their funds. I'm not discrediting all free media, I'm discrediting the economist's decision here to downgrade our democracy purely out of spite and bad sportsmanship

How do you know what IDs blacks usually carry?

I think it's an issue of voter verification, because otherwise couldn't rampant voter fraud occur?

What ID? Why can't you give proof? Why wouldnt blacks carry it and why is everyone else easily doing it? Why can't we have proper verification that the people voting in our elections or citizens? How does stopping non citizens from voting hurt our democracy? If anything it bolsters it's legitimacy. It shouldnt become a racist and disgusting argument that blacks are somehow too dumb to know to bring the necessary credentials. Sounds like silly race bating on a serious issue that needs to be addressed when we have over a dozen million illegals that could potentially vote in out election

Again. referring back to the North Carolina case. The Republican Party under McCory basically had a series of studies done in voting habits on certain voters, especially blacks, and came up with policies that would add more barriers to voting.

I don't know what IDs they carry, you can look it up online yourself.

Well that's really dumb!

We're all equal, Mr. Goldberg in my sociology class said so. So for that reason i don't see why such a policy would be a barrier to voting!

I think holding people of different skincolors to different standards is pretty racist!

You can't give any specific proof and you can't even name the specific ID which everyone else seems to have no trouble with. The implication the McCory, a governor is racist enough to go out and target how to suppress blacks is a serious implication that shouldn't be thrown around lightly. Frankly the accusations sound ludicrous and desperate

Christ you two are fucking idiots. I didn't fucking go and write several studies on the subject matter. You can google "North Carolina Voter Suppression" and look for yourselves if you're so curious about the details.

>You can google "North Carolina Voter Suppression"

Just did.

The first 3 results are "Theatlantic", "thedailybeast" and "Salon".

I already have a bit of a clue about what it will be about. Just based off their other wonderful pieces I had a chance to read.

HERE!

nytimes.com/2016/07/30/us/federal-appeals-court-strikes-down-north-carolina-voter-id-provision.html?_r=0

washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/appeals-court-strikes-down-north-carolinas-voter-id-law/2016/07/29/810b5844-4f72-11e6-aa14-e0c1087f7583_story.html?utm_term=.b9384632f1ce

thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/289798-appeals-court-strikes-down-north-carolinas-voter-id-law

>nytimes.com/2016/07/30/us/federal-appeals-court-strikes-down-north-carolina-voter-id-provision.html?_r=0

Incredible

>The North Carolina ruling tossed out the state’s requirement that voters present photo identification at the polls

How is presenting photo ID racist? Have you deluded yourself thoroughly enough to believe that?

LOL

It's racist because it's a more secure forum of identification to prevent fraud.

The methods they are using are clearly intended to hamper and complicate the voting process for poor and uneducated voters, which to no one surprise are rarely white. This goes against the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th amendment.

>No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

Arguably it also goes against amendment 15 if it's possible to consistently prove that the methods are directed at racial minorities and not just poor people.

>The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude

Thank you based Finland

No they aren't.

But I thought only poor uneducated white people voted for Trump and the educated voted for Hillary? You should be enthusiastic about this then if it targets such people(Hint, it doesnt target any body except people who don't have photo ID's, aka illegals)

>are clearly intended

How is it clearly intended to require photo identification?

>and complicate the voting process for poor and uneducated voters

What is difficult about requiring photo id?

You don't need to be rich nor highly educated to realize that you need to identify yourself when doing something like voting.

Requiring photo ID to vote is not racist.

It doesn't discriminate against anyone unless you're somehow implying that Blacks are too unintelligent compared to other races.

>half of yurop flawed democracy
uhh
explain?
you can't just post a chart like that without explaining

Here are the 60 Indicators:

economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.pdf

How in the actual fuck are you arguing that it discriminates against the poor and uneducated to require a photo ID?

Are you guys just trolling? - if so, 10/10 really riled me up.

>No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
Doesnt do that, all citizens have an ID so it doesnt restrict any of their privileges. It enhances it in fact because it ensures that only real citizens are voting

>The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude
It's not denying anyone with the right to vote their voting power, it's ensuring that these people are actual citizens by looking at valid ID

>Couldnt argue for something himself and blindly believes in it
Pathetic

What can I say, I love american law.
It's much more dramatic and interesting than main land european law.

Trying to turn everything into a partisanship issue is why everyone hates trump fanboys.

If that doesn't convince you then amendment twenty four should shut you up.

>The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax

In short no american has to spend money to vote. Unless the states are prepared to supply the photo IDs for free then they are acting unconstitutionally.

Just dissecting your illogical and hypocritical beliefs and making them naked for everyone to see, but most importantly for yourself to reflect on

>spain that hihg

All you did was make a speculative guess about my motivations to discuss american laws. I'd hardly call that dissecting anything but your own butthurt about someone not falling in line with your way of thinking.

>to pay any poll tax or other tax

But it's not a tax, it's a basic thing people who are CITIZENS(read: citizen) need to live their life.

The only people without photo ID's are illegals, who should not be voting.

>Unless the states are prepared to supply the photo IDs for free then they are acting unconstitutionally.

That's REALLY twisting the constitution.

This is like on the level of those people on youtube who get pulled over by Police then yell "I'M A SOVEREIGN CITIZEN I DON'T NEED TO SHOW YOU MY ID OR IDENTIFY MYSELF TO YOU".

>I'd hardly call that dissecting anything but your own butthurt about someone not falling in line with your way of thinking.

Sup Forums in a nutshell, eh?

>All you did was make a speculative guess about my motivations to discuss american laws.
It's not speculation, it's an observation of your tantrums and rage filled rants against trump across this entire board. You've gone on such a tirade against him that you've ceased to even be anonymous here. You care little for American law but more for verifying your political beliefs by skewing and ignoring it

No American is spending money to vote, but it's paramount that undeniable proof of citizenship is given for someone to vote less our country become a flawed democracy. Wouldn't want Russian spies voting willy nilly now, would we?

If a photo ID is compulsory for voting it's not a service but a part of the voting process and as such should not require compensation, be it direct or indirect tax. It's unconstitutional, simple as that.

And here I was thinking we were having a nice and courteous discussion about american voting process. What a shame.

>It's unconstitutional, simple as that.

And why is the constitution so important?

it's a piece of paper written by a bunch of people hundreds of years ago who barely even agreed on it themselves. It's literally nothing. Fuck the constitution

How else do you propose they verify the voters?

>If a photo ID is compulsory for voting it's not a service but a part of the voting process and as such should not require compensation, be it direct or indirect tax. It's unconstitutional, simple as that.
Verifying citizenship is not unconstitutional, allowing non citizens to vote is unconstitutional. No citizen is spending money to vote directly, if they have to indirectly to get photo ID which they should already have it is an unrelated matter

What is going on in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan?

its flawed, but way better than letting California and New York decide for the whole country

>Flawed democracies
>aka countries that haven't been libcucked
Trump saved it from going full green.

>If Hillary wins: America is the greatest democracy in da werld

>If Trump wins: America is a fascist dictatorship

Ah yes, what an impressive unbiased index that is.

lol

I actually kind of wished for Hillary to win so the US would go to war against Russia and then we'd finally have a Fascist revolution.

>Canada
>Full democracy
This is how I knew this chart is bullshit. Our Prime Minister can win with less than 40% of the vote.

Electing the woman who rigged her primary nomination and undoubtedly used unethical means to get support during the main campaign, over the guy who had to fight his own party to get a nomination then the entire world to win the election, is undemocratic?

You can hate Trump all you want but really? That's just pettiness

this

It's also hilarious that they would rank Canada as being better than the UK, when we have the exact same political system (except slightly worse, because instead of the House of Lords we have the fucking Senate).

Isn't the DNC a private party? Why does it matter that they shafted Bernie?

Also unethical means? Like Trump and Russia?

why is america such a shithole

It is. Disregard the booty blasted OP

You know king nigger lost the popular vote to hillary, right? Bet you didn't.

This. It's a map created by lefties for lefties to pat themselves on the back.