Social democracy can, and does work, under the right circumstances. One of those is a reasonable population level. For social democracy to work, you need democracy. It’s in the dang name. But a representative democracy where each representative needs to try and represent 637,000 people is unreasonable. If you want social democracy to work, you need to get the democracy part working, and that requires a manageable population.
So, let’s say each representative would represent no more than 50,000 people. It’s an arbitrary number but I’m just picking something for the sake of argument. We also wouldn’t want the legislative body to be too large and unwieldy, so let’s say it shouldn’t have more than 200 seats. That means the total population shouldn’t exceed 10 million.
No, not proof. That’s hardly an argument. You pulled numbers out of your ass and pretended they’re the right ones with no further consideration or evidence given.
I could as easily say that 10 million per rep and 1000 reps should work with the right system and infrastructure. That gives me a number that I like… But it’s not evidence.
You pulled numbers out of your ass and pretended they’re the right ones with no further consideration or evidence given.
No, I researched the numbers of the Norway government and US government. Feel free to verify them on your own. You will find they are accurate.
I could as easily say that 10 million per rep and 1000 reps should work with the right system and infrastructure.
Ok, well, can you provide a single example? I’ve provided one, and I could provide more. Every one of the top ten democracies have a significantly lower number or represented people per elected representative than the US. There’s only one democracy that has a higher number of represented people per representative than the US, and that’s India, with a total of about 1.7 million people per representative. I should note that India ranks 41 on the democracy index, and has the classification of “flawed democracy.” Also, no one considers India to be a social democracy, that I could find.
But there’s no evidence if Norway had more representatives, or more people per representative, that their democracy would crumble.
I truly, honestly, believe a democracy doesn’t have to be small to be effective or social. There are many smaller democracies that don’t score well, such as most of South America, the Caribbean, much of Africa, etc.
I think that sets apart those democracies on the list you keep referencing is sane election policies, money and religion separated from politicians as much as possible, free journalism, an engaged voting base, a recall system, and basically any electoral system not first past the post.
So far you’ve provided examples, and I truly appreciate that. I also appreciate you being earnest and willing to have a real conversation about this. I’m truly not trying to be dismissive or disrespectful.
There are many smaller democracies that don’t score well, such as most of South America, the Caribbean, much of Africa, etc.
Sure, I acknowledge that. I’m not saying that a smaller population guarantees a successful democracy, nor a social democracy, but I think it is one of the requisites. Those other things you mentioned are probably requisites as well.
Again, I think it comes down to simple math. A single representative can’t represent 600,000 people as effectively as 30,000. More people means greater diversity of thoughts and ideas, beliefs, ideologies, interests, etc. And that’s especially true if the people hold mutually exclusive ideas. For instance, a representative can’t represent both a white supremacist and black civil rights leader simultaneously. Their goals and world view are diametrically opposed. A representative can’t represent both at the same time, at least not on the matter of civil rights. Similarly, a representative can’t represent both a social democrat and a neoliberal capitalist simultaneously. Their goals are in direct opposition to one another. The social democrat wants higher taxes and a stronger social safety net, the neoliberal wants lower taxes and a smaller safety net.
Social democracy can, and does work, under the right circumstances. One of those is a reasonable population level. For social democracy to work, you need democracy. It’s in the dang name. But a representative democracy where each representative needs to try and represent 637,000 people is unreasonable. If you want social democracy to work, you need to get the democracy part working, and that requires a manageable population.
So, let’s say each representative would represent no more than 50,000 people. It’s an arbitrary number but I’m just picking something for the sake of argument. We also wouldn’t want the legislative body to be too large and unwieldy, so let’s say it shouldn’t have more than 200 seats. That means the total population shouldn’t exceed 10 million.
No, not proof. That’s hardly an argument. You pulled numbers out of your ass and pretended they’re the right ones with no further consideration or evidence given.
I could as easily say that 10 million per rep and 1000 reps should work with the right system and infrastructure. That gives me a number that I like… But it’s not evidence.
No, I researched the numbers of the Norway government and US government. Feel free to verify them on your own. You will find they are accurate.
Ok, well, can you provide a single example? I’ve provided one, and I could provide more. Every one of the top ten democracies have a significantly lower number or represented people per elected representative than the US. There’s only one democracy that has a higher number of represented people per representative than the US, and that’s India, with a total of about 1.7 million people per representative. I should note that India ranks 41 on the democracy index, and has the classification of “flawed democracy.” Also, no one considers India to be a social democracy, that I could find.
But there’s no evidence if Norway had more representatives, or more people per representative, that their democracy would crumble.
I truly, honestly, believe a democracy doesn’t have to be small to be effective or social. There are many smaller democracies that don’t score well, such as most of South America, the Caribbean, much of Africa, etc.
I think that sets apart those democracies on the list you keep referencing is sane election policies, money and religion separated from politicians as much as possible, free journalism, an engaged voting base, a recall system, and basically any electoral system not first past the post.
So far you’ve provided examples, and I truly appreciate that. I also appreciate you being earnest and willing to have a real conversation about this. I’m truly not trying to be dismissive or disrespectful.
Sure, I acknowledge that. I’m not saying that a smaller population guarantees a successful democracy, nor a social democracy, but I think it is one of the requisites. Those other things you mentioned are probably requisites as well.
Again, I think it comes down to simple math. A single representative can’t represent 600,000 people as effectively as 30,000. More people means greater diversity of thoughts and ideas, beliefs, ideologies, interests, etc. And that’s especially true if the people hold mutually exclusive ideas. For instance, a representative can’t represent both a white supremacist and black civil rights leader simultaneously. Their goals and world view are diametrically opposed. A representative can’t represent both at the same time, at least not on the matter of civil rights. Similarly, a representative can’t represent both a social democrat and a neoliberal capitalist simultaneously. Their goals are in direct opposition to one another. The social democrat wants higher taxes and a stronger social safety net, the neoliberal wants lower taxes and a smaller safety net.
You’re unconvinced and so am I. Let’s agree to disagree.