None. But to be factual the word “democracy” doesn’t even appear in our constitution. There are differences in what a “democracy” and a “republic” are supposed to be and how they are ran.
So… why single out the United States in this regard?
Anyway, my country cracked the top ten so suck it, Kim.
That’s completely irrelevant to the issue I addressed: to wit, what and who senators represent.
Closest we come in the U.S. are some townships in Maine and other “all citizens” town councils.
This means WAR!
(Hey, why not? San Diego sunk one of your Navy’s Destroyers. That’s a good start, ain’t it?)
Because I have no clue as to what type of government the others are “officially” supposed to be.
so, whether citizens have a say on actual policies, is not even a criterium?
The present views of the notoriously imperialist minded Economist, but otherwise accurate.
The fact that American elections are built around specific terms of office rather than a parliamentary system might be considered as a less democratic feature.
While direct democracies appear to be the purest form of democracy, they can actually be less democratic in their real world application.
Consider classical Athens, which was the model for direct democracy. All the citizens (assuming they weren’t saves or women) were entitled to meet, discuss, and vote on public issues. What could be more democratic than that?
But now consider who could actually participate as a practical matter. Citizens who lived outside the city would have had to leave their homes and travel several hours in order to attend the meetings in Athens - so city dwellers outvoted rural farmers. And the average Athenian had to work - only the upper class could take a few hours off when they wanted in order to go to a meeting.
So a system which supposedly opened democracy equally to all freemen actually was controlled by upper class businessmen. The rural and working class interests would have been better served by a representative system where these groups could have chosen people to represent them full time.
Officially, the United States is a “democracy in a republic.” That’s according to a House Resolution, anyway, from 1918, establishing the “American Creed.” I have no idea what a “democracy in a republic” means.
I remember reading of a university experiment in direct democracy. Almost immediately, people were giving their proxies to others, and a system of representation evolved. As you note, it’s too intrusive on the time available to most people to do the work of governing.
So, what type of democracy that US have?
There are senses in which one sort of democracy works against another. One thing that would feature in the Economist’s index (relating to efficacy of government) might be what looks from outside to be a much less powerful permanent/professional civil service in the US. On the one hand, democracy rules that the winners of an election should set the policy and lead its implementation; on the other hand, changing so many people at the top and several layers down in the bureaucracy takes times and holds it up, particularly if you have a system with a built-in potential for gridlock.
With us, a new government (mostly, depending on whether we end up with a coalition govenment) can hit the ground running, because the top civil servants will have been in discussion with the opposition about their policies and proposals, can present incoming ministers with implementation plans more or less as they arrive, and will be in a position to get on with them once approved, without having to wait to see if they keep their jobs.
But which is more democratic? All a matter of judgement, I suppose.
The patterns I detect within the top ten:
They are mostly parliamentary states (i.e. non-executive Heads of State): Norway, Sweden, Iceland, New Zealand, Denmark, Canada, Australia, Netherlands
They are mostly unicameral (i.e. no senate): Norway, Sweden, Iceland, New Zealand, Finland, Denmark
But of the bicameral states, most have asymmetrical bicameralism (i.e. the senate can only delay, not block, legislation): Canada, Netherlands, or a means of resolving institutional conflict to save popular legislation - Australia’s Double Dissolutions and the very rare Joint Sittings.
All of them to my knowledge have a tradition of both local and national referendums and citizen initiatives, although none to the ease and extent of Switzerland.
Turnouts:
Norway…80.4%
Sweden…87.1%
Iceland…89.5%
New Zealand…90.8%
Denmark…85.9%
Switzerland…56.5%
Canada…73.9%
Finland…76.0%
Australia…94.5% (compulsory voting)
Netherlands…87.5%
Look how low Switzerland’s voter turnout is. I suspect it could be due to voter fatigue.
There are also ancient minorities in Norway, the Saami and Kvæn peoples.
Legal residents who have been resident for 3 years or more can vote in local and municipal elections. Very roughly equivalent to state and lower level governance in the US. Nordic citizens are exempt from the 3-year rule.
Only citizens vote in the national elections for parliament. Turnout among naturalized citizens in these elections are very, very low however, at 56 %. They are about 6 % of the electorate.
This may be a significant factor. In a parliamentary system, the party which wins the election normally can get its platform enacted, which is a strong democratic value: the people know that a vote for Party X means that Party X’s policies will become law if that party forms a government. There’s not the gridlock that can happen in congressional system. (This value is weakened in a system which generally returns minority governments, which require some type of coalitions, but I think is still a strong democratic value.)
Not so for Canada: the Senate can defeat any bill, even money bills. However, it rarely does so, because it lacks the political authority of the Commons. It only has a suspensory power over constitutional amendments, however.
Not so for Canada. At the national level, there have only been three referendums since Confederation in 1867, and each was a one-off. The two referenda in Quebec were extraordinary, on whether to separate. Quebec has never had a referendum on what you might call ordinary legislative matters. Direct citizen initiatives (ie where the citizens vote to enact legislation, as in California and Switzerland) are unconstitutional, at both the federal and provincial level.
19th out of 200 sovereign nation states isn’t exactly low.
It’s also not exactly a linear list. In any sense that matters to a normal person, the difference in how much “democracy” they experience in Norway, Canada, or the USA is probably going to be unnoticeable.
It depends how loosely you define “normal person”. If I was a black American, I might think my democracy wasn’t working very well at all. A black Canadian would feel more confident, I hope. An aboriginal Canadian, I have to admit, could justly feel screwed over.
Whenever stuff like this or crime rates get talked about, the United States’ diversity gets brought up as a reason for it’s outlying status. I know the immigration foundation story is important to America’s view of itself but is it really that more diverse than most other countries?
I can’t think of any other nation as racially diverse as the US. We have ‘white’ folks from basically every European nation, we have ‘Asians’ from every Asian nation and ‘black’ folks from every African nation. We have ‘hispanic’ folks from every central and south American nation and we have a pretty diverse number of native American tribes as well. What other nation has this level of diversity? In most nations they have something like ‘white’, ‘asian’, ‘hispanic’, ‘black’, etc but usually those groups themselves aren’t such a mixture. You don’t generally have, say, a large German population of ‘whites’ in, say, the UK…or as large a Polish, or Eastern European, or Italian or Spanish. ‘White’ in the UK generally means Scots, Irish and English (which we also have a lot of here).
The US really is a nation of immigrants, and we have taken in folks from literally every other nation on earth. We are also huge population wise compared to, say, Norway which has around 5 million people. The US has CITIES that large or larger. Hell, we probably have nearly as many people with Norwegian blood as there live in Norway.
But that’s just going with your gut. I bet you have no idea about the immigration history of any other country. For example, Canada is showing as more diverse in that article I linked. It’s a land of immigrants as well and didn’t wipe out nearly all it’s native population like the States did.