There are many campaign finance systems around the world, and a lot of experience with them in other countries. Can you provide clear and concrete evidence that the kind of mechanisms you envision work better in practice in other countries?
What, in fact, are your objective criteria for "better democracy"?
Note that it is insufficient to cite factors that you prefer for ideological reasons. For example, particular forms of campaign finance may correlate with lower levels of income inequality, but if that's your argument, you are really arguing that we should change the campaign finance system to achieve your political objectives, not in order to achieve a better democracy (low levels of income inequality are not by themselves an indication of a functioning democracy, since low income inequality exists even in many non-democratic nations).
I'm curious as to what you are referring to as non-democratic nations with "low income inequity". North Korea has a very high level of inequity when you include the government elite. It does not matter if there are huge hordes that are starving equally, since there is a non-zero number not belonging to that set.
I didn't use the term "inequity", and it means something very different from "inequality". Don't conflate the two terms, and don't put such words in other people's mouths.
Second, to answer your question, simply take this list:
sort by whichever index you like, and then look near the bottom. You'll find plenty of non-democratic nations with low income inequality. A prime example of low income inequality in a non-democratic nation was the GDR. Nazi Germany also managed to reduc
Saudi Arabia is blank in that table for "World Bank GINI", which is otherwise the most populated. There is the "GPI Gini" but only a few countries have that, and there seems to be little correspondence to show where Saudi Arabia may be inserted.
Sorting by "World Bank GINI", you are right that at the low end there are a number of former Soviet republics mixed in with the expected EU countries (Denmark, Sweeden, Norway, and Austria are lowest). I think the history of these countries may make them somewhat unu
You're trying to rescue an argument that simply doesn't work because you're mixing up many different forms of government and stages of economic development. The data shows you that low inequality is neither necessary nor sufficient for democratic government, simple as that. Economically, if you dig a bit deeper, you'll find that low income inequality is negatively correlated with economic growth for developing nations, but for developed nations it is positively correlated. I'd rather live in a high growth d
Professional wrestling: ballet for the common man.
International comparison? (Score:3)
There are many campaign finance systems around the world, and a lot of experience with them in other countries. Can you provide clear and concrete evidence that the kind of mechanisms you envision work better in practice in other countries?
What, in fact, are your objective criteria for "better democracy"?
Note that it is insufficient to cite factors that you prefer for ideological reasons. For example, particular forms of campaign finance may correlate with lower levels of income inequality, but if that's your argument, you are really arguing that we should change the campaign finance system to achieve your political objectives, not in order to achieve a better democracy (low levels of income inequality are not by themselves an indication of a functioning democracy, since low income inequality exists even in many non-democratic nations).
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious as to what you are referring to as non-democratic nations with "low income inequity". North Korea has a very high level of inequity when you include the government elite. It does not matter if there are huge hordes that are starving equally, since there is a non-zero number not belonging to that set.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't use the term "inequity", and it means something very different from "inequality". Don't conflate the two terms, and don't put such words in other people's mouths.
Second, to answer your question, simply take this list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]
sort by whichever index you like, and then look near the bottom. You'll find plenty of non-democratic nations with low income inequality. A prime example of low income inequality in a non-democratic nation was the GDR. Nazi Germany also managed to reduc
Re: (Score:2)
Saudi Arabia is blank in that table for "World Bank GINI", which is otherwise the most populated. There is the "GPI Gini" but only a few countries have that, and there seems to be little correspondence to show where Saudi Arabia may be inserted.
Sorting by "World Bank GINI", you are right that at the low end there are a number of former Soviet republics mixed in with the expected EU countries (Denmark, Sweeden, Norway, and Austria are lowest). I think the history of these countries may make them somewhat unu
Re: (Score:2)
You're trying to rescue an argument that simply doesn't work because you're mixing up many different forms of government and stages of economic development. The data shows you that low inequality is neither necessary nor sufficient for democratic government, simple as that. Economically, if you dig a bit deeper, you'll find that low income inequality is negatively correlated with economic growth for developing nations, but for developed nations it is positively correlated. I'd rather live in a high growth d