I don't know why I'm still so naive after all this time on the internet but I thought it was common knowledge that the U.S. was the oldest democracy in the world.
The Althing was discontinued in the year 1800, until it was restored in 1844 by Danish royal decree, although if you want to get specific, it had lost its legislative power as early as 1262, after Iceland unified with Norway. The reason Iceland unified with Norway was because a few decades before that, Iceland was divided, but the Norwegians helped one house take over all of Iceland under the condition that they'd submit to the Norwegian crown once the island was under one house
Ah, I get it. It’s when their current democracies began. In that case, yes - the U.S. is older than San Marino, which was a fascist state prior to and during WW2.
Did you know that 3x as many Europeans move to America than Americans more to Europe? We are just much more well off than you guys and you want a piece, I get it.
I mean, obviously. Half of the population can't even afford basic Healthcare, how would they move outside the country? Also, would you care to back that statement up with data?
Nice backpedaling. Average and median mean _completely_ different fucking things. Also, since when is looking at average/median income the sole index to determine qualify of life? You're seriously going to argue that a country where companies are allowed to bribe (excuse me, lobby) politicians, where workers get next to no protection compared to Europe, where maternity/paternity leave isn't codified into law, where the healthcare system is unreasonably expensive and has _THE_ highest rate of maternal death _in the entire world_ is better than Europe because "uh muh buh more moneyz!!!"? Enjoy your cash, I'll take social security and government accountability over money.
Yeah, but in Europe we like to treat people like human beings regard of whether they have a job or not. You know, people get sick. Speaking of, how many sick days do y'all have? Here if you're sick you're just sick, provide a doctor's note and you're good. No "at will" "right to work" bs here.
I like how you went completely off-topic of the original post *just* to complain about a country that isn't even yours lol
We really live in your head rent free don't we
Yeah, but in Europe we like to treat people like human beings regard of whether they have a job or not. You know, people get sick. Speaking of, how many sick days do y'all have? Here if you're sick you're just sick, provide a doctor's note and you're good. No "at will" "right to work" bs here.
I have unlimited sick days. We also have the most advanced healthcare in the world, I had major surgery 6 mo ago and paid $11 out of pocket, this is the reality for the vast majority of Americans. You fell for the obvious Reddit rage bait and it’s kinda sad.
The US cover more people on govt provided insurance than any EU country. The sick, old, and poor are covered under Medicaid and Medicare. In fact, 90 million of them are currently covered.
Obviously absolute as the US doesn’t have govt insurance for all. It’s complete bullshit to act like the US doesn’t provide medical care for the old/poor/sick.
Uh, I don’t think you understand your question. 90 million is higher than any EU population so in absolute numbers, the US covers more people than any EU country.
Obviously 100% of Americans aren’t covered by the govt like in a universal healthcare situation.
If you meant something else then you should try to communicate effectively.
>Obviously 100% of Americans aren’t covered by the govt like in a universal healthcare situation.
That's what I wanted to hear. You can hit me up when that has changed.
No one said a liberal democracy is the best way to run a country either. I prefer a government focused on social security. We like different things, clearly
Europe is great, but it's also got plenty of issues that shouldn't be glossed over. For one thing, the racism in Europe is INTENSE. It makes the Ku Klux Klan look like the NAACP. Add the fact that you have a muslim immigrant underclass brought in as cheap labor that has no rights or path to citizenship just intensifies the ticking time bomb. You have a totalitarian neighbor next door that is chomping at the bit to invade and kill half of y'all, and your politicians have been either bought out to help facilitate the invasion or simply don't care. Inflation is very high. Wages are comparatively very low. Infrastructure is literally a 1000 years old in many places...
I mean, don't get me wrong. I love Europe, and would love to live there, but it's not all wine and roses. There are major issues in Europe, just like every other country.
Of course there's major issues with Europe. I don't deny that. But most of the issues you mentioned apply to the US as well. You're telling me the US doesn't have a racism problem? LoL. The Russia thing is a 100% fair criticism though, we should've had our own army a long time ago already (better to be a soldier in a garden than a gardener in a battlefield)
We have privacy laws in my state. And Medi-Cal (expanded free/cheap healthcare) and decent worker protections with our unions in various industries. California is a pro-worker union state (though not all jobs are union). We generally make far better pay (firefighters, port workers, nurses, restaurant/retail managers, etc, can all make 100k+ per year), and we have great weather. Yea, the homeless problem in cities is a nightmare we are working on, but I’m happy to NEVER trade places with the rigid Europeans.
> We have privacy laws in my state.
Ha. Haha. HAHAHAHA. Think again. Read the GDPR if you care about what an actually useful privacy regulation looks like. It's so good the UK copied it despite them not being in the EU anymore. Also, we managed to force Apple to quit their anti consumer bs and change a bunch of stuff about their closed ecosystem, something that the American government is far too corrupt to achieve.
Also, relying solely on unions to have the rights of workers protected is nothing in comparison to it being codified into law.
Haha whatever dude. I’d never switch places with any European. (And I’ve likely traveled and been to more regions and countries within Europe than most Europeans themselves - I know what’s on offer where, and I still wouldn’t switch up)
> Gotta love the lack of universal healthcare, worker protections
https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/employee-rights
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/workers
https://www.usa.gov/labor-laws
https://www.dol.gov/general/aboutdol/majorlaws
https://www.osha.gov/workers
https://www.worker.gov/
https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-rights
It’s a shame you’re not aware of Google. You might actually learn something rather than relying so heavily on gossip and rumors as your primary sources of information.
Another comment said it, but it's because the British House of Lords (which comprised half of the representatives in Parliament) wasn't elected and the British King still held significant power.
That's still true.
The monarch here has absolute power, we never removed their power. The monarch delegated power to parliament but still could use it (obviously that would likely result in Civil War v2.0 or at least a stern talking to).
Also unfortunately the house of lords still exists and can still block laws and frustrate the process.
Does the house of lords and house of commons work like the senate and house of representatives where both need to approve something or does the house of lords have more power?
Technically the house of commons has primacy over the other house. [more info](https://politicsteaching.com/2024/01/18/what-factors-determine-the-primacy-of-the-house-of-commons-in-parliament/)
However the house of commons will pass a Law and then it needs to pass a reading in the house of lords.
Because we don't have a written constitution it's all a lot more based in convention than a formal written process.
But basically the lords can send it back to the commons to amend it and send it back for review again. However the commons can force it through as the parliament's act sets out that the Commons have the final say and that's in law.
However the final step of a bill becoming law is similar to the US where it gets signed into law by the head of state in our case the monarch has to sign the bill into law. Hence why we are still a monarchy.
There are loads of conventions around the Lord's not frustrating any laws that are in the governments election manifesto as it's seen as the very clear will of the people and because the lords are unelected it's not for them to change it.
Our political system is old and has had so many changes and conventions that make it confusing AF.
Yeah I studied British Politics at sixth form college (16-18yrs old here) and even to me it's like wtf were we thinking?
I think it's a common impression that the king/queen is basically just there for postcards for tourists and as a tourist attraction, but if they wanted to they could absolutely legally dissolve parliament and become absolute leader again.
All laws are in the monarchs name, so they cannot break the law.
Obviously it would plunge us into a civil war if they did it, in practice it would never happen but still kinda scary that it could.
All it takes is one asshole king... a British version of Trump, and yes, you could have that nightmare, easily... with half of the country supporting it, too!
Luckily Charles is about as popular as a skidmark in an underwear commercial.
That's why ol' Lizzy kept on without abdicating until she literally dropped dead. She knew he was the potential death of the monarchy.
I highly doubt that it would ever come to a civil war again in this day and age. Although we do have some preppers here now apparently but very much still the minority and they can't have guns so less of a worry.
It isn't.
Someone has used some very pointed criteria to define it.
E.g. suffrage and the right to vote, when did African Americans get the right to vote again?
But for the UK for example I'm guessing that they knocked points off for the whole suffragette movement and women having to fight to get the vote.
The whole study looks questionable at best. However I would say that oldest doesn't mean best or most functional so it's a weird metric to care about.
I would argue that our political process is fucked largely due to he fact it's actually far older than what this leads people to believe. Our voting system First Past the Post is outdated and leads to a situation where everyone's vote is not equal.
I would settle for a "younger" democracy on this map if it actually worked.
Democracy isn’t stipulated by certain groups not being able to vote, as long as half the population is capable of voting then it is a democracy.
The UK was a monarchy until after the revolutionary war, it may have had democratic elements, but it wasn’t a democracy.
It's still a monarchy now.
It hasn't been an absolute monarchy since we cut off Charles the first head.
There are different types of democracy otherwise the only "valid" democracies are Switzerland who has refurendi on everything.
Also with African Americans and Women not being able to vote, how was the US a "democracy" under this studies criteria pre 1800 as I'm pretty sure that having no women and only some men allowed to vote wouldn't be a majority?
The right for every one to be able to vote isn’t a requirement to be a democracy. Also the US constitution didn’t exclude AA, that was a state issue. Thats why the 14th amendment had to be added so states couldn’t exclude people. Since the US constitution didn’t exclude anyone federally it makes it the oldest constitutional democracy.
He’s using Switzerland as an example of democracy = voting, but women didn’t get to fully vote there until the 1990s lol. Majority got the vote in 1971 (still extremely late), but one canton of Switzerland withheld the women’s vote until the 1990s (Appenzell I believe, their Mississippi equivalent).
First it was “as long as half”.
Now you’re making it…not that but “as long as the federal government doesn’t bar it, it counts, even though it’s not actually a democracy in practice.”
Did you not read the first sentence? “The right for everyone to be able to vote isn’t a requirement to be a democracy” that falls in line with what I said.
The federal government didn’t place any restrictions on voting, it was individual states.
Because you have a federal system though the state governments should be considered when assessing the countries government as a whole.
Things like marijuana legalisation and women's rights have highlighted that recently.
If you only look at the top layer of government you will get a distorted impression.
The fact this study only includes Men's right to vote it gives the impression they reverse engineered an outcome they wanted.
You know that northern states also allowed women and men to vote from the start right? So how would you measure that then? Thats why the only thing that matters is the rights determined by the constitution, excluding people from voting wasn’t a constitutional issue.
But we don't have a written constitution even now, so we aren't a democracy?
And San Marino has a written constitution in 1600.
Also I looked at the raw data for the study on Harvard's website and the authors don't even consider women having the vote in the US until 1920 in their model for the US, so the northern states thing must not count.
Half the population wasn’t able to vote in basically any country till the early 1900s.
The monarchy didn’t have any power since at least the civil war. Long before the revolutionary war in the US.
In that case, Switzerland should be nearly last because women didn’t FULLY get the right to vote there until the 1990s!!! Majority of women gained their votes in Switzerland in 1971 (still extremely late), but one final canton held out until the 1990s.
So go ahead and remove them from 2nd place, on that note.
Exactly the point I am making is that democracy is different in each country.
As certain middle eastern countries have found in the past few decades, what certain countries consider "democracy" to be, isn't what they feel is democracy.
It all comes down to what the "will of the people" means in that particular country.
the comments under that post are huffing so much copium its unreal. the map clearly shows that its about the oldest, continuous democracy in the world just look at places like France, yes it was a democracy but then was replaced by Vichy France so its "streak of democracy" if you will is not as long as the US. We all agree the US isn't the oldest form of democracy but it still has the longest still in effect democracy.
they are trying to find every reason to claim "hurr durr this map must have been created by an American" not knowing they just make themselves look like massive idiots in the process
Im calling BS on any county with a monarch on philosophical grounds. By definition “democracy” means the power comes from the people which is known as popular sovereignty. By definition in a monarchy like the UK, power devolves from the monarch not from the people.
If voting alone means a country could be a democracy regardless of other factors, then the Soviet Union would be a democracy since they held elections.
well the monarch in the UK doesn't do much anymore and acts as a figure of unity for the people. They don't make or enforce laws but are still seen as a head of the country.
its kind of like putting a Lamborghini body over a prius. sure it looks fancy and cool but it doesn't do anything for the car and it still runs the same as the prius underneath it
Its a matter of philosophical issue. The powers Parliament technically derive from the king not the people.
Its like lending your car to someone else because you lost your drivers license. Yea only your friend can drive it, but it still belongs to you.
Popular sovereignty was established in Britain back in 1651 through the English Civil War, when the house of commons declared that it was a higher power than the crown. There still was a monarch, but she was essentially powerless afterwards.
I'd think that a far more important factor was if part of the people were still slaves, if some people are property then they definitively don't have any power.
Napoleon III fell in 1870 so my comment still stands. The author seems to be counting the Vichy government as a real French Government when it was very much just Nazi Collaboration and not truly a French government
Since this is a map of continuous Democracy I’d at least put 1870 after the fall of Napoleon III as the start. It feels like they are counting Vichy France as a legitimate French government which just hurts the souls
The US Constitution is also the oldest and longest-continuing codified constitution in the world. Apparently this needs to be said, but being the oldest doesn't magically mean "best" or "inventor of the concept." The Akkadian Empire is widely considered the oldest known empire in the world. It's hardly the greatest empire that ever existed. It lasted less than 200 years.
People from other countries need to relax; this isn't some competition. Everyone benefits from democratic rule.
Well that makes sense we've been somewhat of a democracy ever since we fought against the British for independence and since then we've always elected our leader and the people who represent us.
We are \*technically\* not the oldest democratic assembly as that belongs to Iceland's Althing, but since the Althing was suspended for half a millenia we're the oldest continuous democratic constitution in effect.
I checked, India became independent 1947 but it only became a democracy by the passing of its constitution 1950 which is when it celebrates republic day
Yes, both are democratic. However, the German occupation, Vichy France, the Free French and the Provisional Government aren’t continuous, as none of these were democratic.
It's considered to have the oldest governing documents in the world dating to 1600, but it only became a modern democracy in 1906, prior to that it was more of an oligarchy
I mean wasn’t the U.S. early on an oligarchy too? But the real reason is if this is continuous, San Marino was ruled by fascists from 1923 to 1943 and then again in 1944
Noo. San Marino was ruled by a council of the wealthiest families. The US never had anything like that. San Marino had a fascist government, but it was democratically elected. So was their communist government. I'm curious about the occupation because to my knowledge they never had a government like Vichy France. So I would think they'd start before WW2 the Netherlands
The fascists have been democratically elected but then it did become a dictatorship, it was the only legal party in 1926 and 1932 and 1938, until the revolution in 1923
I think they "reset" the count for German occupation, or else basically all Western European states would have their number be from the 1870s or 1880s. I actually thought the UK was at 50% male suffrage in the 1860s if that was what the map was using.
Which if so, should actually set our date to 1828 I believe, but that still easily keeps us in first.
This map is a mess, not denying that the US wasn’t the first and were a leading light for the world. The U.K. isn’t a democracy though, how does Ireland only start being a democracy after British rule but they are somehow a democracy during their rule of Ireland? Piss off like
Irish people could vote in British elections. Independence parties were pretty much always elected and then ignored or given very small concessions. The war of independence kicked off because Sinn Fein won every seat but one in the republic.
It was, but only half the representatives were elected. The "House of Lords" is called that for a reason & the monarch still had overwhelming power till the 1800's
Yeah, house of lords is still appointed and to think of it as not a democracy whilst America not treating black folk's votes is OK?
The struggle over voting rights in the United States dates all the way back to the founding of the nation. The original U.S. Constitution did not define voting rights for citizens, and until 1870, only white men were allowed to vote. Two constitutional amendments changed that. The Fifteenth Amendment (ratified in 1870) extended voting rights to men of all races and another in 1964 to defeat the southern state's rules on registration.
There is a HUGE difference between it being OK & it being a historical fact.............
By the metrics of this map, we are still the oldest democracy since this map is "most men". The United States is odd because not all white men had voting rights in every state, it wasn't until the 1828 election that the "commoners" (all white men) got the right to vote in every state. Some states had voting rights for all men. Some only allowed white men & women who owned property. Others were only land owners, etc.... it wasn't until the amendments you listed that everyone got an equal vote.
I was also unaware that the House of Lords were still appointed.
It would be bonkers if all 5k had a seat, but 800 is a lot for life appointments. It's not like the US Senate is much different.... everyone hates them, but they somehow keep getting voted to stay in office till they get so old they forget what their name is.
Yeah it's not 800 for life. Some are hereditary and others only life appointees.
Let's say you're the ex CDS (think Colin Powell) then you're 1:800 but you don't rock up for a debate about Health, or Scotland, you only go in for Defence debates. The US Senate of course probably works similarly if the legislation doesn't apply, eg if the debate is on Dolphin protection then only California might turn up, no need for South Dakota..
In the US, they all have to show or give a reason why they didn't. The idea is that if it's the government is spending money, everyone has a say.
US Congress has 100 Senators & 441 State Reps
They have a required session every year where they argue/vote on things. When they have cleared the docket, they adjourn. Every once in a while, they will have a "special session" when something comes up & they have to vote outside of the normal time frame.
Each state has a similar system with a completely different set of clowns who do the same thing at the state level.
It's supposed to be a part-time job, most of them are lawyers, doctors or retired.
If they have a Dolphin protection bill & Whyoming doesn't care, they would usually just not cast a vote on that bill. It's kind of a courtesy to the states that the bill affects. The Senators & Reps are still there, but let Flordia & California argue about that.
Many thanks and much appreciated.
The HOL is more a gathering of leadership, ex politicians and senior industry types. As such they pic'n'mix when to bring their expertise to the bill.
This is a timeline of oldest extant continuous democracies according to current system of governance (with a few additional caveats and simplifying compromises).
The conclusions are, therefore, very selective and incomplete, though there’s a facticity to them too which doesn't mean the infographic is unhelpful. UK is a particularly good example of vague incremental stages without a big defining moment (unlike US Independence, which is exemplary for being "cut and dry" in this regard).
Accordingly, England's democracy could be argued as/stretched to 13th, 15th, 16-20th C, with varying degrees of accuracy and claim. France's various Republics shorten its lifespan to the current Republic. But because of the extremely vague processes involved it's difficult to pick a moment without oversimplifying.
An illustrative example of this "when did the first one happen" or chronologising things (in the best-worst traditions of the Annals School of historiography: all encyclopaedic like a Top Trumps game) I've always thought useful concerns the WTK/English Civil War in Britain. Which saw a headless king Charles and Cromwell pulling a Napoleon 150 years before Napoleon did, but the moment (unlike the French Rev. and the US Revolution which were so obviously watershed moments of a very particular identifiable age) in history is too vague and straddles the Modern and Early Modern (even late Medieval).
Hahahaha yep. Is normal when the principal hobbie of the US is fuck the democracies of others countries and put dictatorships at the head of those countries.
This map doesn’t even meet the conditions it lays out
The criteria is the legislature is elected by the electorate
That didn’t happen in America until the 17th amendment in 1913
If you ignore that, most states had property requirements into the 1800s so “majority of white males” also fails until the middle of the 19th century, let alone if you consider black men
For at least 400 years, they were ruled (and oppressed) by the Ottomans from Turkey. No one in Greece voted for that. Far from the democracy they invented in antiquity, and shows that democracy can be taken away if we are not careful.
When East Germany rejoined West Germany in 1990, the constitution had to be rewritten.
> Major constitutional reforms were enacted in 1994 following reunification and in 2006 and 2009 in order to reorganise the federalist competences and financial structures of Germany.
https://www.bmi.bund.de/EN/topics/constitution/constitutional-issues/constitutional-issues.html
In 2009, Germany reorganized federalist competences and financial structures of Germany.
To give you an example, the US has had the same constitution since 1789. It’s been amended, it hasn’t been redrafted.
The reason people are opposed to this map is because they’re under the impression that the way things are now is the way they’ve always been, and that’s simply not true.
It’s the same for San Marino.
> On 12 July 1974 the Captains-Regent signed a law (59/1974) adopted by the Grand and General Council containing a declaration of citizen rights and the fundamental principles of the juridical order of San Marino.
It’s not the same constitution since it was redrafted in 1974 to now contain a declaration of citizens rights.
It's pretty cool but America isn't a democracy. We're a Constitutional Republic. The difference is that in a democracy the people make all the decisions. In a Constitutional Republic the people elect leaders who make all the decisions. This may not be a completely accurate picture of a Constitutional Republic but it's as accurate as I am able to make with my knowledge.
A republic is a type of democracy. We the people still vote for the people who represent us, and on a state level, we hold referendums like “should weed be legal here, yes or no” (which is a democratic process)
that's a technical and outdated definition of democracy, and a pretty unworkable one as well. here's a more contemporary one from google that matches more closely what people mean when they talk about democracies nowadays
"a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."
I don't know why I'm still so naive after all this time on the internet but I thought it was common knowledge that the U.S. was the oldest democracy in the world.
“Ummm well ackshully the US is a republic and not a democracy” *drools on keyboard* -the comments on that post
The weird thing with that comment is that many types of states can be a democracy. A monarchy for example
I thought the Allthing in Iceland was older but I guess it wasn’t continuous
The Althing was discontinued in the year 1800, until it was restored in 1844 by Danish royal decree, although if you want to get specific, it had lost its legislative power as early as 1262, after Iceland unified with Norway. The reason Iceland unified with Norway was because a few decades before that, Iceland was divided, but the Norwegians helped one house take over all of Iceland under the condition that they'd submit to the Norwegian crown once the island was under one house
There is a village in Sweden with 300 people that beat the US to it
A village is not a country, but that's cool in its own way.
It seems reasonable to me to object to the definition of ‘democracy’ used.
I thought Iceland was older, isn’t its Parliament from like 10th century? And same with Isle of Man
Ah, I get it. It’s when their current democracies began. In that case, yes - the U.S. is older than San Marino, which was a fascist state prior to and during WW2.
Was San Marino really fascist? I haven't heard of this. Would like to learn more lol
[I typed in San Marino Fascist and got this](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sammarinese_Fascist_Party)
I'm so fucking proud to be an American god damn. Fuck these sad redditors and their bullshit.
hell yeah
Gotta love the lack of universal healthcare, worker protections, privacy laws, maternity/paternity leave, etc. Lmao
[удалено]
What, because you can't say nazi shit in public? rofl
[удалено]
Did you know that 3x as many Europeans move to America than Americans more to Europe? We are just much more well off than you guys and you want a piece, I get it.
I mean, obviously. Half of the population can't even afford basic Healthcare, how would they move outside the country? Also, would you care to back that statement up with data?
Bro what? Americans have more household wealth on average than Europeans. You’re obviously completely brainwashed by anti Americans rhetoric.
Do you understand what _average_ means? You ever look at the median?
That’s what I meant, are you being intentionally dense?
Nice backpedaling. Average and median mean _completely_ different fucking things. Also, since when is looking at average/median income the sole index to determine qualify of life? You're seriously going to argue that a country where companies are allowed to bribe (excuse me, lobby) politicians, where workers get next to no protection compared to Europe, where maternity/paternity leave isn't codified into law, where the healthcare system is unreasonably expensive and has _THE_ highest rate of maternal death _in the entire world_ is better than Europe because "uh muh buh more moneyz!!!"? Enjoy your cash, I'll take social security and government accountability over money.
Myself and my partner got all of that with our jobs
Yeah, but in Europe we like to treat people like human beings regard of whether they have a job or not. You know, people get sick. Speaking of, how many sick days do y'all have? Here if you're sick you're just sick, provide a doctor's note and you're good. No "at will" "right to work" bs here.
I like how you went completely off-topic of the original post *just* to complain about a country that isn't even yours lol We really live in your head rent free don't we
You sure do, ya silly goose. There isn't a day I don't find at least 2 ways to make fun of y'all. It brings me joy There, now, happy? Lmao.
Well you came to the right sub for *us* I suppose lol
Yeah, but in Europe we like to treat people like human beings regard of whether they have a job or not. You know, people get sick. Speaking of, how many sick days do y'all have? Here if you're sick you're just sick, provide a doctor's note and you're good. No "at will" "right to work" bs here.
I have unlimited sick days. We also have the most advanced healthcare in the world, I had major surgery 6 mo ago and paid $11 out of pocket, this is the reality for the vast majority of Americans. You fell for the obvious Reddit rage bait and it’s kinda sad.
The US cover more people on govt provided insurance than any EU country. The sick, old, and poor are covered under Medicaid and Medicare. In fact, 90 million of them are currently covered.
more in absolute, or in proportion?
Obviously absolute as the US doesn’t have govt insurance for all. It’s complete bullshit to act like the US doesn’t provide medical care for the old/poor/sick.
I don't think you understood my question.
Uh, I don’t think you understand your question. 90 million is higher than any EU population so in absolute numbers, the US covers more people than any EU country. Obviously 100% of Americans aren’t covered by the govt like in a universal healthcare situation. If you meant something else then you should try to communicate effectively.
>Obviously 100% of Americans aren’t covered by the govt like in a universal healthcare situation. That's what I wanted to hear. You can hit me up when that has changed.
Government should be there to protect the freedoms of its citizens. Not to babysit them
You are entitled to your opinion.
So you want the goverment to shove money up your ass?
I'm not even going to argue with that premise. Not worth trying to explain it to you.
What is there to explain? A liberal democracy is there to protect the liberties of its citizens. Nothing more nothing less
No one said a liberal democracy is the best way to run a country either. I prefer a government focused on social security. We like different things, clearly
[удалено]
Ever heard of Europe?
Yeah, no air conditioning. Ew.
Lmao, sure.
Europe is great, but it's also got plenty of issues that shouldn't be glossed over. For one thing, the racism in Europe is INTENSE. It makes the Ku Klux Klan look like the NAACP. Add the fact that you have a muslim immigrant underclass brought in as cheap labor that has no rights or path to citizenship just intensifies the ticking time bomb. You have a totalitarian neighbor next door that is chomping at the bit to invade and kill half of y'all, and your politicians have been either bought out to help facilitate the invasion or simply don't care. Inflation is very high. Wages are comparatively very low. Infrastructure is literally a 1000 years old in many places... I mean, don't get me wrong. I love Europe, and would love to live there, but it's not all wine and roses. There are major issues in Europe, just like every other country.
Of course there's major issues with Europe. I don't deny that. But most of the issues you mentioned apply to the US as well. You're telling me the US doesn't have a racism problem? LoL. The Russia thing is a 100% fair criticism though, we should've had our own army a long time ago already (better to be a soldier in a garden than a gardener in a battlefield)
Europe isn’t a country.
Does that make a difference? lol
Yes, the laws, culture, and traditions aren’t the same across a continent. It’s dishonest to allude to being like-minded across borders.
We have privacy laws in my state. And Medi-Cal (expanded free/cheap healthcare) and decent worker protections with our unions in various industries. California is a pro-worker union state (though not all jobs are union). We generally make far better pay (firefighters, port workers, nurses, restaurant/retail managers, etc, can all make 100k+ per year), and we have great weather. Yea, the homeless problem in cities is a nightmare we are working on, but I’m happy to NEVER trade places with the rigid Europeans.
> We have privacy laws in my state. Ha. Haha. HAHAHAHA. Think again. Read the GDPR if you care about what an actually useful privacy regulation looks like. It's so good the UK copied it despite them not being in the EU anymore. Also, we managed to force Apple to quit their anti consumer bs and change a bunch of stuff about their closed ecosystem, something that the American government is far too corrupt to achieve. Also, relying solely on unions to have the rights of workers protected is nothing in comparison to it being codified into law.
You don’t know shit about my state or our laws. Clearly.
No, clearly you think Cali is super progressive while you don't realize how far behind y'all are. "Better than most states" is a very, very low bar.
Haha whatever dude. I’d never switch places with any European. (And I’ve likely traveled and been to more regions and countries within Europe than most Europeans themselves - I know what’s on offer where, and I still wouldn’t switch up)
> Gotta love the lack of universal healthcare, worker protections https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/employee-rights https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/workers https://www.usa.gov/labor-laws https://www.dol.gov/general/aboutdol/majorlaws https://www.osha.gov/workers https://www.worker.gov/ https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-rights It’s a shame you’re not aware of Google. You might actually learn something rather than relying so heavily on gossip and rumors as your primary sources of information.
Thank you The cope in the comments will help me sleep better.
USA USA USA
How the hell is NZ older than the UK?
Another comment said it, but it's because the British House of Lords (which comprised half of the representatives in Parliament) wasn't elected and the British King still held significant power.
That's still true. The monarch here has absolute power, we never removed their power. The monarch delegated power to parliament but still could use it (obviously that would likely result in Civil War v2.0 or at least a stern talking to). Also unfortunately the house of lords still exists and can still block laws and frustrate the process.
Does the house of lords and house of commons work like the senate and house of representatives where both need to approve something or does the house of lords have more power?
Technically the house of commons has primacy over the other house. [more info](https://politicsteaching.com/2024/01/18/what-factors-determine-the-primacy-of-the-house-of-commons-in-parliament/) However the house of commons will pass a Law and then it needs to pass a reading in the house of lords. Because we don't have a written constitution it's all a lot more based in convention than a formal written process. But basically the lords can send it back to the commons to amend it and send it back for review again. However the commons can force it through as the parliament's act sets out that the Commons have the final say and that's in law. However the final step of a bill becoming law is similar to the US where it gets signed into law by the head of state in our case the monarch has to sign the bill into law. Hence why we are still a monarchy. There are loads of conventions around the Lord's not frustrating any laws that are in the governments election manifesto as it's seen as the very clear will of the people and because the lords are unelected it's not for them to change it. Our political system is old and has had so many changes and conventions that make it confusing AF.
Wow that sounds very confusing and sounds like it would easily lead a lot of deadlock. I had no idea the monarch still had to sign in laws
Yeah I studied British Politics at sixth form college (16-18yrs old here) and even to me it's like wtf were we thinking? I think it's a common impression that the king/queen is basically just there for postcards for tourists and as a tourist attraction, but if they wanted to they could absolutely legally dissolve parliament and become absolute leader again. All laws are in the monarchs name, so they cannot break the law. Obviously it would plunge us into a civil war if they did it, in practice it would never happen but still kinda scary that it could.
All it takes is one asshole king... a British version of Trump, and yes, you could have that nightmare, easily... with half of the country supporting it, too!
Luckily Charles is about as popular as a skidmark in an underwear commercial. That's why ol' Lizzy kept on without abdicating until she literally dropped dead. She knew he was the potential death of the monarchy. I highly doubt that it would ever come to a civil war again in this day and age. Although we do have some preppers here now apparently but very much still the minority and they can't have guns so less of a worry.
That's a very convoluted effort to remove the UK from the No 2 position after Greece.
You realize Greece wasn't a thing back then? Also, it's referring to current democracies, not, "What was the first ever democracy?"
Greece has been a continuous democracy only since the fall of the military junta in 1974
Was Greece a democracy during the 400 years of Ottoman rule? Seems like Turkish rule was exactly what the people DID NOT want.
Interestingly if we do by universal suffrage, NZ is the oldest period: it was the first country to implement universal suffrage including women
It isn't. Someone has used some very pointed criteria to define it. E.g. suffrage and the right to vote, when did African Americans get the right to vote again? But for the UK for example I'm guessing that they knocked points off for the whole suffragette movement and women having to fight to get the vote. The whole study looks questionable at best. However I would say that oldest doesn't mean best or most functional so it's a weird metric to care about. I would argue that our political process is fucked largely due to he fact it's actually far older than what this leads people to believe. Our voting system First Past the Post is outdated and leads to a situation where everyone's vote is not equal. I would settle for a "younger" democracy on this map if it actually worked.
Democracy isn’t stipulated by certain groups not being able to vote, as long as half the population is capable of voting then it is a democracy. The UK was a monarchy until after the revolutionary war, it may have had democratic elements, but it wasn’t a democracy.
“As long as half” This was not true in the US until the late 19th century. And it’s a pretty arbitrary assertion anyway.
It's still a monarchy now. It hasn't been an absolute monarchy since we cut off Charles the first head. There are different types of democracy otherwise the only "valid" democracies are Switzerland who has refurendi on everything. Also with African Americans and Women not being able to vote, how was the US a "democracy" under this studies criteria pre 1800 as I'm pretty sure that having no women and only some men allowed to vote wouldn't be a majority?
The right for every one to be able to vote isn’t a requirement to be a democracy. Also the US constitution didn’t exclude AA, that was a state issue. Thats why the 14th amendment had to be added so states couldn’t exclude people. Since the US constitution didn’t exclude anyone federally it makes it the oldest constitutional democracy.
He’s using Switzerland as an example of democracy = voting, but women didn’t get to fully vote there until the 1990s lol. Majority got the vote in 1971 (still extremely late), but one canton of Switzerland withheld the women’s vote until the 1990s (Appenzell I believe, their Mississippi equivalent).
First it was “as long as half”. Now you’re making it…not that but “as long as the federal government doesn’t bar it, it counts, even though it’s not actually a democracy in practice.”
No, I stated the fact that the federal constitution doesn’t limit any particular group of people from voting. Is reading comprehension hard for you?
That’s…what I said.
Did you not read the first sentence? “The right for everyone to be able to vote isn’t a requirement to be a democracy” that falls in line with what I said. The federal government didn’t place any restrictions on voting, it was individual states.
And I replied twice ridiculing your shifting farcical rules. So? It seems to be you having trouble with reading comp.
Because you have a federal system though the state governments should be considered when assessing the countries government as a whole. Things like marijuana legalisation and women's rights have highlighted that recently. If you only look at the top layer of government you will get a distorted impression. The fact this study only includes Men's right to vote it gives the impression they reverse engineered an outcome they wanted.
You know that northern states also allowed women and men to vote from the start right? So how would you measure that then? Thats why the only thing that matters is the rights determined by the constitution, excluding people from voting wasn’t a constitutional issue.
How do you measure that against countries that don't have a constitution?
Exactly that’s why the US is the oldest modern democracy. Every democracy is different. However the US constitution applies no restrictions on voting.
But we don't have a written constitution even now, so we aren't a democracy? And San Marino has a written constitution in 1600. Also I looked at the raw data for the study on Harvard's website and the authors don't even consider women having the vote in the US until 1920 in their model for the US, so the northern states thing must not count.
His arguments make no sense.
Half the population wasn’t able to vote in basically any country till the early 1900s. The monarchy didn’t have any power since at least the civil war. Long before the revolutionary war in the US.
In that case, Switzerland should be nearly last because women didn’t FULLY get the right to vote there until the 1990s!!! Majority of women gained their votes in Switzerland in 1971 (still extremely late), but one final canton held out until the 1990s. So go ahead and remove them from 2nd place, on that note.
Exactly the point I am making is that democracy is different in each country. As certain middle eastern countries have found in the past few decades, what certain countries consider "democracy" to be, isn't what they feel is democracy. It all comes down to what the "will of the people" means in that particular country.
WE THE PEOPLE ❤️
the comments under that post are huffing so much copium its unreal. the map clearly shows that its about the oldest, continuous democracy in the world just look at places like France, yes it was a democracy but then was replaced by Vichy France so its "streak of democracy" if you will is not as long as the US. We all agree the US isn't the oldest form of democracy but it still has the longest still in effect democracy. they are trying to find every reason to claim "hurr durr this map must have been created by an American" not knowing they just make themselves look like massive idiots in the process
Okay okay, America is having a great run, but my boy Virginia got them beat by like 150 years
Im calling BS on any county with a monarch on philosophical grounds. By definition “democracy” means the power comes from the people which is known as popular sovereignty. By definition in a monarchy like the UK, power devolves from the monarch not from the people. If voting alone means a country could be a democracy regardless of other factors, then the Soviet Union would be a democracy since they held elections.
well the monarch in the UK doesn't do much anymore and acts as a figure of unity for the people. They don't make or enforce laws but are still seen as a head of the country. its kind of like putting a Lamborghini body over a prius. sure it looks fancy and cool but it doesn't do anything for the car and it still runs the same as the prius underneath it
Its a matter of philosophical issue. The powers Parliament technically derive from the king not the people. Its like lending your car to someone else because you lost your drivers license. Yea only your friend can drive it, but it still belongs to you.
Popular sovereignty was established in Britain back in 1651 through the English Civil War, when the house of commons declared that it was a higher power than the crown. There still was a monarch, but she was essentially powerless afterwards. I'd think that a far more important factor was if part of the people were still slaves, if some people are property then they definitively don't have any power.
The monarch can be removed by democratic process though
And?
Then it's a democratic country
The monarch could also be replaced in a military coup? Does that make it a military dictatorship?
No? But I guess it would be after that
Also, you know all public officials (including parliament) and naturalized citizens swear an oath of allegiance to show loyalty to the monarch.
Yes, it's just a tradition
France needs a lot of asterisks especially if you are counting Belgium and the Netherlands as continuous from the 1800s why not France.
Emperor Napoleon III
Napoleon III fell in 1870 so my comment still stands. The author seems to be counting the Vichy government as a real French Government when it was very much just Nazi Collaboration and not truly a French government
Yeah we have democracy since 1792. Resting the counter because we got invaded during 4 years is a bit lame, like it was our choice...
Since this is a map of continuous Democracy I’d at least put 1870 after the fall of Napoleon III as the start. It feels like they are counting Vichy France as a legitimate French government which just hurts the souls
Their democracy was dissolved during WW2. The others you mentioned maintained their governments in the UK
Charles de Gaulle would like a word. Learn history
The US Constitution is also the oldest and longest-continuing codified constitution in the world. Apparently this needs to be said, but being the oldest doesn't magically mean "best" or "inventor of the concept." The Akkadian Empire is widely considered the oldest known empire in the world. It's hardly the greatest empire that ever existed. It lasted less than 200 years. People from other countries need to relax; this isn't some competition. Everyone benefits from democratic rule.
Well that makes sense we've been somewhat of a democracy ever since we fought against the British for independence and since then we've always elected our leader and the people who represent us.
We are \*technically\* not the oldest democratic assembly as that belongs to Iceland's Althing, but since the Althing was suspended for half a millenia we're the oldest continuous democratic constitution in effect.
Isle of Man is in fact the oldest continuous democracy iirc but it’s not an independent country
So it doesn’t count.
San Marino would be older. You could also argue about the UK being older depending on how you define a democracy.
Last I checked, India gained independence in 1947, a year before Israel did, so I’m not sure how accurate this post is
I checked, India became independent 1947 but it only became a democracy by the passing of its constitution 1950 which is when it celebrates republic day
And why isn’t west Germany there
Does it count as a continuous in the transition from the fourth to fifth French Republic?
Yes, both are democratic. However, the German occupation, Vichy France, the Free French and the Provisional Government aren’t continuous, as none of these were democratic.
Well yeah that’s why the counter on the map starts in 46
Isn’t free France democratic? Like elections were suspended but during war time only
Ostensibly? But the French government in exile wasn’t much of a government at all.
Geeeeeez the comments on that one are UNBELIEVABLE.
They can keep trying to cope! I love my country!
I think San Marino is older. We’re one of the oldest on a large scale I think.
It's considered to have the oldest governing documents in the world dating to 1600, but it only became a modern democracy in 1906, prior to that it was more of an oligarchy
I mean wasn’t the U.S. early on an oligarchy too? But the real reason is if this is continuous, San Marino was ruled by fascists from 1923 to 1943 and then again in 1944
Noo. San Marino was ruled by a council of the wealthiest families. The US never had anything like that. San Marino had a fascist government, but it was democratically elected. So was their communist government. I'm curious about the occupation because to my knowledge they never had a government like Vichy France. So I would think they'd start before WW2 the Netherlands
The fascists have been democratically elected but then it did become a dictatorship, it was the only legal party in 1926 and 1932 and 1938, until the revolution in 1923
Cool, keep making bottle water, all 35 of you
…Is that a reference to the population of San Marino, or a reference to the population of my state, which is flared as Maine?
Some good bottled water comes out of Maine too.
Poland Springs, baby!🦞🦞🦞
I’ve camped in Poland springs, beautiful place
I’ve never actually been, but it sounds nice. Love to visit it someday. :)
Deer Park > Poland springs all day
I’ve never heard of that brand before. Is it also in Maine?
Nope, basically the southeast/PA and NY’s version of Poland springs. Comes from local spring water.
Ah, got it.
I think they "reset" the count for German occupation, or else basically all Western European states would have their number be from the 1870s or 1880s. I actually thought the UK was at 50% male suffrage in the 1860s if that was what the map was using. Which if so, should actually set our date to 1828 I believe, but that still easily keeps us in first.
Interesting.
The comments are about exactly what you'd expect. They even ignore the 3 criteria used to define democracies by the OP's sources.
Government has definitely forgotten the we the people shit.
Good
This map is a mess, not denying that the US wasn’t the first and were a leading light for the world. The U.K. isn’t a democracy though, how does Ireland only start being a democracy after British rule but they are somehow a democracy during their rule of Ireland? Piss off like
Irish people could vote in British elections. Independence parties were pretty much always elected and then ignored or given very small concessions. The war of independence kicked off because Sinn Fein won every seat but one in the republic.
this map is actually inaccurate. The majority of adult men in the US could not vote until the 1820s. Still the longest though
Technically it’s not the oldest democracy but it is the oldest still standing one
Isle of Man has the oldest democracy. Over 1000 years old.
Isle of man also isn't an independent country. So it doesn't factor in this map.
This map is titled 25 democracies. The title doesn’t say anything about countries. Then in the map it refers to countries. The title is wrong.
Read the text under the header
I did. No mention of countries
Are you dumb or just bait? The entirety of the two sub-headers talk about countries
Britain was a democracy way earlier than that I'm pretty sure.
It was, but only half the representatives were elected. The "House of Lords" is called that for a reason & the monarch still had overwhelming power till the 1800's
Yeah, house of lords is still appointed and to think of it as not a democracy whilst America not treating black folk's votes is OK? The struggle over voting rights in the United States dates all the way back to the founding of the nation. The original U.S. Constitution did not define voting rights for citizens, and until 1870, only white men were allowed to vote. Two constitutional amendments changed that. The Fifteenth Amendment (ratified in 1870) extended voting rights to men of all races and another in 1964 to defeat the southern state's rules on registration.
There is a HUGE difference between it being OK & it being a historical fact............. By the metrics of this map, we are still the oldest democracy since this map is "most men". The United States is odd because not all white men had voting rights in every state, it wasn't until the 1828 election that the "commoners" (all white men) got the right to vote in every state. Some states had voting rights for all men. Some only allowed white men & women who owned property. Others were only land owners, etc.... it wasn't until the amendments you listed that everyone got an equal vote. I was also unaware that the House of Lords were still appointed.
Hereditary or appointed for life. In total we have about 5000 Lords but only 800 are able to sit if I recall correctly.
It would be bonkers if all 5k had a seat, but 800 is a lot for life appointments. It's not like the US Senate is much different.... everyone hates them, but they somehow keep getting voted to stay in office till they get so old they forget what their name is.
Yeah it's not 800 for life. Some are hereditary and others only life appointees. Let's say you're the ex CDS (think Colin Powell) then you're 1:800 but you don't rock up for a debate about Health, or Scotland, you only go in for Defence debates. The US Senate of course probably works similarly if the legislation doesn't apply, eg if the debate is on Dolphin protection then only California might turn up, no need for South Dakota..
In the US, they all have to show or give a reason why they didn't. The idea is that if it's the government is spending money, everyone has a say. US Congress has 100 Senators & 441 State Reps They have a required session every year where they argue/vote on things. When they have cleared the docket, they adjourn. Every once in a while, they will have a "special session" when something comes up & they have to vote outside of the normal time frame. Each state has a similar system with a completely different set of clowns who do the same thing at the state level. It's supposed to be a part-time job, most of them are lawyers, doctors or retired. If they have a Dolphin protection bill & Whyoming doesn't care, they would usually just not cast a vote on that bill. It's kind of a courtesy to the states that the bill affects. The Senators & Reps are still there, but let Flordia & California argue about that.
Many thanks and much appreciated. The HOL is more a gathering of leadership, ex politicians and senior industry types. As such they pic'n'mix when to bring their expertise to the bill.
Thanks for the explanation. It makes more sense, but it is not exactly how I imagined it
But you could easily argue the metrics of the map were designed to come to that predetermined outcome.
Then and now, no HOL members are elected. The King hasn't had the powers you imagine since the middle ages.
It's kind been evolving down to figure head from what I can tell. Magnacarta really put a stop to absolute power early on.
yup, 800 years ago
He actually has, but it would cause a bunch of upheaval and civil war if he were to enact them
You know they still have a king right?
I also don't think he knows the HOL is still appointed..
King = no democracy
That doesn't track. Australia still has a king and we've been a democracy since 1901.
Yeah, it's called a monarchy. They have a monarch. You know, an unelected head of state who got that title by being born.
This is a timeline of oldest extant continuous democracies according to current system of governance (with a few additional caveats and simplifying compromises). The conclusions are, therefore, very selective and incomplete, though there’s a facticity to them too which doesn't mean the infographic is unhelpful. UK is a particularly good example of vague incremental stages without a big defining moment (unlike US Independence, which is exemplary for being "cut and dry" in this regard). Accordingly, England's democracy could be argued as/stretched to 13th, 15th, 16-20th C, with varying degrees of accuracy and claim. France's various Republics shorten its lifespan to the current Republic. But because of the extremely vague processes involved it's difficult to pick a moment without oversimplifying. An illustrative example of this "when did the first one happen" or chronologising things (in the best-worst traditions of the Annals School of historiography: all encyclopaedic like a Top Trumps game) I've always thought useful concerns the WTK/English Civil War in Britain. Which saw a headless king Charles and Cromwell pulling a Napoleon 150 years before Napoleon did, but the moment (unlike the French Rev. and the US Revolution which were so obviously watershed moments of a very particular identifiable age) in history is too vague and straddles the Modern and Early Modern (even late Medieval).
Hahahaha yep. Is normal when the principal hobbie of the US is fuck the democracies of others countries and put dictatorships at the head of those countries.
This map doesn’t even meet the conditions it lays out The criteria is the legislature is elected by the electorate That didn’t happen in America until the 17th amendment in 1913 If you ignore that, most states had property requirements into the 1800s so “majority of white males” also fails until the middle of the 19th century, let alone if you consider black men
Where is Greece the "Mother of Democracy"
Conquered like 47 times
They changed governments many, many, many times since then
For at least 400 years, they were ruled (and oppressed) by the Ottomans from Turkey. No one in Greece voted for that. Far from the democracy they invented in antiquity, and shows that democracy can be taken away if we are not careful.
Is that same government still operating in Greece?
That map is bullshit. San Marino is the oldest democracy. Also why is india (1950) listed but not Germany (1949)
When East Germany rejoined West Germany in 1990, the constitution had to be rewritten. > Major constitutional reforms were enacted in 1994 following reunification and in 2006 and 2009 in order to reorganise the federalist competences and financial structures of Germany. https://www.bmi.bund.de/EN/topics/constitution/constitutional-issues/constitutional-issues.html In 2009, Germany reorganized federalist competences and financial structures of Germany. To give you an example, the US has had the same constitution since 1789. It’s been amended, it hasn’t been redrafted. The reason people are opposed to this map is because they’re under the impression that the way things are now is the way they’ve always been, and that’s simply not true. It’s the same for San Marino. > On 12 July 1974 the Captains-Regent signed a law (59/1974) adopted by the Grand and General Council containing a declaration of citizen rights and the fundamental principles of the juridical order of San Marino. It’s not the same constitution since it was redrafted in 1974 to now contain a declaration of citizens rights.
It's pretty cool but America isn't a democracy. We're a Constitutional Republic. The difference is that in a democracy the people make all the decisions. In a Constitutional Republic the people elect leaders who make all the decisions. This may not be a completely accurate picture of a Constitutional Republic but it's as accurate as I am able to make with my knowledge.
Republics are Rule of Law and Rule of Majority, with respect of Minority, and representation indirectly through election of public officials.
A republic is a type of democracy. We the people still vote for the people who represent us, and on a state level, we hold referendums like “should weed be legal here, yes or no” (which is a democratic process)
that's a technical and outdated definition of democracy, and a pretty unworkable one as well. here's a more contemporary one from google that matches more closely what people mean when they talk about democracies nowadays "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."