Political Theory, especially Modern Political Theory, has always been an area of interest of mine. A question that I have often discussed and debated with friends is - what are some key reasons or factors that keep a democracy going. The usual factors that come up are:

• An educated population
• A strong judiciary
• A healthy economy
• A thriving middle class etc.

All valid reasons that make sense. However, recently I took this online course on Modern Politics, and while the professor discussed several of the factors above, he highlighted 4 specific factors - sharing them to get your thoughts/feedback and have an interesting discussion.

First, money/income/wealth. Not just talking about inequality. But overall per capita income. The professor said that his data and analysis shows that nations with a per capita income of $15000+ are much more likely to have a functioning democracy. And if its under this threshold, things may start to wobble. Democracy isn’t just a political game; it’s an economic one too. Note that there are some exceptions to this for e.g., India - the largest democracy in the world - has a per capita income of ~$2K.

Second, a diversified economy is key. If a country’s wealth comes from just one source - say, oil - then whoever controls that resource controls the whole game. Its like Monopoly (the game), but instead of hotels, it’s barrels of oil. Democracies work when people can make a living through multiple avenues, not just by grabbing political power. Is this a reason why rich countries in the Middle East are not democracies and might never become one, even though their per capital income is high?

Third, political turnover is important. For a healthy democracy, the government and parties running the country need to turn over at regular intervals. Countries where leaders step down peacefully after losing elections tend to build a norm around it. When a democracy sees power change hands a couple of times, that demoracy is more likely to sustain. On the other hand, if a country is run by an individual or a party for a long period of times, it is likely to turn into an authoritarian state. Hungary may be an example of where such a transition may be happening.

Lastly, the level of happiness and satisfaction of the middle-class. The middle-class being discontented is a threat. It’s not the poorest who shake things up, its the middle class. When this class, who thought they were doing okay, start feeling the pinch - via rising prices, fewer job opportunities, or fear of worse times to come - they get restless. And this restlessness could challenge functioning democracies. Is the overthrow of Hasina in Bangladesh and example of this?

Note that it’s not just about having the “right” culture or institutions. At its core, democracy survives when the underlying economic and social interests are aligned enough to make it work.

What do you think? Are these factors enough to explain why some democracies work and others don’t?

In my post, I write about the changing seascape of the world that makes democracy increasingly problematic for rational long-term societal decision-making. I would love to hear r/democracy's thoughts!

https://heatdeathandtaxes.substack.com/p/we-are-in-late-stage-democracy?r=2k3t04

“Most Americans expect President-elect Donald Trump to do a good job upon his return to the White House next month (54%) and a majority approves of how he’s handling the presidential transition so far (55%) according to a CNN poll”

Who exactly are these ignorant trolls calling themselves Americans? Apparently, they think 14 billionaires, an anti vax climate change denier, a drunk running the military, a Putin supporter and a moron that thinks tariffs are taxes that other nations pay is “good for the economy”.

I’m not rooting for failure of a nation but genuinely hope all 54 percent are jobless, broke and destitute for supporting the dismantling of 248 years of the republic.

Twice now I’ve seen posts calling for the elimination of secret ballots on this subreddit. I’m sure there are some I haven’t seen. I believe Trumpers/fascists are testing their communications using this subreddit to see how to get democracy supporters on board with making votes public and/or what arguments we’ll use against such an awful idea. Be vigilant.

Trump’s call for electoral reform could actually be an opportunity. It is only a problem if it actually means suppressing votes. Given the state of our democracy, opposition to electoral reform would be extremely short sighted.

I remember when we first started using voting machines. Anyone with experience in software development can tell you there are always hidden vulnerabilities. How do we know that ballots were not cast in the name of people who registered but didn’t vote? How do you know the software didn’t flip your vote at some point? You can’t, and that sucks. Given the importance of elections, we deserve to have a system that is clearly trustworthy. We deserve a system that ensures the will of the people is fairly reflected in the outcomes.

The trouble is, any significant reform will require widespread approval. The bigger the change, the more important it is to move beyond ideological devisions. Fortunately, most people are fair minded. Why should voting only occur on one day, rather than a full week? Why isn’t the last day a national holiday? Shouldn’t we ensure that everyone has access to a precinct with short lines? These points are easy to argue, so let’s not underestimate the fair-mindedness of the average person.

So, what do we do? I would like to make a couple observations:

1. I believe it is possible to have a voting system that is simultaneously secret and verifiable. But more on that later.
2. France does not have a spoiler effect. You could vote for a third party without risking that the worse of the top two evils will win. How? Simple: they have an actual runoff election - not a complicated instant runoff - just an actual runoff. Only the top two candidates move to the final round so the winner will definitely obtain a majority of votes.
3. Arrow’s impossibility theorem: no ranked voting system (including a ranking of one, like we have now) can satisfy basic properties of fairness. The problem is essentially that the rank hides the degree of support. Experts who study elections know of an alternative called approval voting. Approval voting is not ranked; you can give approval to as many candidates as you want.

I propose the following (major) election reform for offices of the president and senators. Let there be two rounds, two weeks apart. In the first round, use approval voting on all eligible candidates. The top two candidates who receive the highest approval move to the second round. In the second round, you vote for a single candidate as usual, ensuring that the winner receives a majority and eliminating any spoiler effect.

This system would create viable third options, which could have an astonishing impact on our democracy. Right now, if one party obstructs the ruling party from making policy progress, the voters have nowhere else to turn. Our system creates an incentive to sabotage and slow things down. If the system allowed viable third options, opposition parties couldn’t assume voters would turn to them if they sabotage progress.

I have a lot more to say, but I’m curious to hear reactions so far.

Hi there,

Just incase anyone is interested in the South Korea situation I've posted an article on the subject (linked below),

https://thecandlelight.co.uk/2024/12/05/the-fragility-of-democracy/

All the best,

I was a child under ten years old in 1989. I was listening to the news on TV, filled with both hope and worry. Then, at some point, the coverage of that event "Suddenly" decreased. I felt immense fear, sadness, and helplessness at this "Sudden" change.

As a teenager, I learned that similar events had happened multiple times in Korea. It was shocking. One of the works about these events earned its author the first Nobel Prize in Literature for Korea. But at the same time, I also learned that many people deny or minimize these events. When I was young, the adults around me, including my parents, were all lying or hiding about these events.

I searched for similar stories in schools, libraries, and on the internet. Similar events have occurred countless times throughout world history. Each one was "unimaginable" something to me. But what scared me more was what happens in history when people succumb to fear. I realized that growing up in a relatively privileged environment was solely due to the courage and sacrifices of those who lived before me. However, learning this was incredibly sad and painful.

As a Korean, the recent martial law was also a shock to me. I tend to worry a lot. Recently, I have been thinking and fearing that something like this could happen. But the general perception of martial law was that it was "crazy." Yet it happened. For many ordinary people, this was an "unimaginable" event.

Could something "crazy" and "unimaginable" happen again? I think it could. At this point, what scares me the most is that if something happens tomorrow, or even sooner, I might not go out to the streets because of this fear in my head. I don't want to be that person. This is scarier to me than dying.

I desperately hope that nothing terrible happens. If you are someone who can influence this situation, I ask you to help us in any way possible.

At the same time, I want to say that such events are not rare in the world and have happened recently. Whenever I hear similar news, my heart is with them. For example, I know that the people of Myanmar are going through even harder times than us. I always pray for them.

I am far from perfect. I have made many mistakes, big and small, in my life. But I have a desire to be someone who helps others whenever possible. If allowed, I want to be a courageous person. I don't want to be a shameful person.

Please keep with us. Tell about us more widely. And if you are a foreign journalist in South Korea, I want to ask you to come to the rally on Saturday. If something happens earlier, please document that.

photo Trump announces right-wing immigration hardliner will serve as "border czar" Trump, who has promised to implement the largest deportation operation in US history, announced that Tom Homan, his former acting US Immigration and Customs Enforcement director, will serve as "border czar" in his incoming administration. In addition to overseeing the southern and northern borders and "maritime, and aviation security," the MAGA cult leader said Homan will take lead on rounding up millions of immigrants and sending them...somewhere else? Homan, whose appointment does not require Senate confirmation, claimed the military would not be involved in Trump's mass deportation plans and that ICE would move to implement the operation in a "humane manner," whatever that means.

Take Action: Tell Republicans in Congress: Hands off our Obamacare!

photo VIDEO OF THE DAY: Breaking news on big Supreme Court shake up Justice Sonia Sotomayor, 70, is currently expected to remain on the Supreme Court, despite uncertainty about when Democrats will control the White House and Senate again after January 20, 2025. Brian Tyler Cohen discusses what's truly at stake and spells out the sobering truth: the only thing worse than a 6-3 conservative supermajority is a 7-2 conservative supermajority.

Take Action: Demand Congress reform the Supreme Court!

photo Elon Musk busted in ILLEGAL vote-buying operation MoveOn: Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, gave more than $75 MILLION to elect Trump and attempted to give away $1 MILLION a DAY through Election Day to registered voters in key battleground states like Pennsylvania in efforts of boosting voter registration in favor of Trump. This is outrageously illegal and he must be held accountable. Will you sign the petition to demand the Department of Justice investigate Elon Musk for his flagrant efforts to buy votes?

Right-wing claims that millions of noncitizens would illegally vote evaporated after Trump’s win Huh. So no massive vote fraud, eh? Well, at least the baseless fearmongering served its purpose and helped put the MAGA cult leader back in power.

Elon Musk jumps right into GOP Senate leadership battle by attacking one contender as the "top choice of Democrats" The world's richest ketamine enthusiast wasted little time meddling in the internal affairs of the Republican Party he just bankrolled back into power. Having helped secure a second Trump presidency with hundreds of millions of his own Monopoly money, Musk clearly intends to seek a return on his investment. The nüTwitter head twit put his finger on the proverbial scales and brandished John Thune, the current GOP #2 in the Senate, the "top choice of Democrats" and threw his support behind Florida's Rick Scott, a rubber stamp of a senator fully committed to doing all of Donald's bidding, no questions asked.

Take Action: Tax Elon Musk before he becomes a trillionaire!

photo EPA staff fear Trump will destroy how it protects Americans from pollution Uh, yeah. Same. At least the 75+ million people who backed Trump won't have to worry about the alarming health effects and disastrous consequences of their vote, since Republicans breathe different air and drink different water than the rest of us. Oh, wait. Never mind.

Sen. Bernie Sanders says he doesn't support urging Justice Sonia Sotomayor to step down Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday defended keeping Justice Sonia Sotomayor on the Supreme Court, after some Democrats have reportedly considered pressuring her to step down while President Joe Biden is still in office. "No," Sanders said, when asked by Meet the Press moderator Kristen Welker whether he thinks Sotomayor, who is 70, should step down from her post while Biden can nominate a liberal replacement. "I don't think it’s sensible," Sanders said, without elaborating on his position further.

photo How Trump won and where we go from here No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen: Woof.

Nikki Haley informed she’s not welcome back in Trump's second administration Bend the knee, kiss the ring, and kindly see yourself out the door.

California voters reject proposed ban on forced prison labor in any form California voters have rejected a measure amending the state Constitution to ban forced labor in any form. The constitution currently bans it except as punishment for crime. That exemption became a target of criminal justice advocates who are concerned about prison labor conditions. People who are incarcerated are often paid less than $1 an hour to fight fires, clean cells, and do landscaping work at cemeteries. The initiative was included in a package of reparations proposals introduced by lawmakers as part of an effort to atone and offer redress for a history of racism and discrimination against Black Californians. 2024, y'all.

Trump demands Senate streamline his Cabinet picks as recruitment begins The president-elect has demanded the incoming Republican leader in the Senate streamline the temporary approval of his Cabinet appointees, as the MAGA cult leader and his cabal of right-wing extremists plan on wasting zero time implementing a host of policies that will ravage the country. Can't wait to see what incredibly important posts the likes of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Elon Musk land.

photo

The USA, today

US Air Force backpedals claim it is not responsible for PFAS cleanup in Arizona Democrats hold out hope in Pennsylvania Senate race as Republicans declare victory Fire officials describe harrowing conditions as Southern California wildfire exploded Hispanic radio host tells MSNBC Dems lost Latino men over Harris' gender Trump accusers feel his election win will prevent assault victims from coming forward Trump taps House Rep. Elise Stefanik as UN ambassador The daily planet

Israeli strikes kill dozens in Lebanon and northern Gaza while Netanyahu and Trump speak Israel’s ousted defense minister says the military has done all it can in Gaza Developing world needs private finance for green transition, says COP29 president Satellite images and documents indicate China working on nuclear propulsion for new aircraft carrier Japan’s parliament re-elects Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba despite bruising election result The Taliban will attend a UN climate conference for the 1st time Hope...

Veterans with PTSD making progress thanks to service dog program Positive outlook on aging is linked to feeling sharper mentally, says new study GoodGoodGood: New invention uses animal bones to filter water, promising a nearly "zero cost" solution to water filtration facebook-share Share twitter-share Tweet PS — Please don't forget to sign the petition telling Congress to defend the freedom of the press, and be sure to follow us on Twitter, Facebook, and Good Influence on Instagram

I have very little ideas about how voting is made secure right now. But it seems like measures could be taken to make voting more secure.

1. One idea, that is not ideal, but seems like it would work, is to just not vote anonymously anymore. Voting records would show who voted for whom, would be public record. You could have a website where people click a box "yes this is who I voted for".

2. Same as 1) only instead of listing names, give voters a random number when voting. Post publically what numbers voted for whom, and have people be able to click a box confirming that is who they voted for (and the website could show which votes have been confirmed.

3. Create a non-partisan committee/agency that investigates voting results.

4. Video records of what people vote for. Not revealing publically who voted for who, but for comparisons sake with investigating committees/agencies.

I feel like I've had a couple better ideas but can't think of any right now. Any other ideas?