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.
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.