Data on 786 elections in 155 countries from 1974 to 2004 … [finds] that fraud may have affected the results in 41 percent of them. Perhaps that shouldn’t be surprising, since incumbent politicians who cheat to get reelected stay in office 2.5 times longer than they would have playing it fair and square. …
I considered forwarding it to him, but he is extremely skeptical of data in this form.
To add to the examples above; what does 'per capita income $2700+' actually select for? Is it income, or is it Europeans? The second possibility is just a bit confounding.... The data, properly considered, provokes more study, (which I don't have grants for) not conclusions.
Further, while I am short on geopolitical data, 'autocracies above $2700' sounds like China and Russia, both of which were recently communist.
In short, even if perfectly accurate, the article could be utterly misleading...or not, and it's exceptionally hard to tell the difference.
Also, you do know the actual answer for 'bringing democracy,' right? Power/prestige/self-validation. These would be exactly the same if democracy actually worked, too.
Did U.S. democracy have these same problems when our per capita income was below $2,700? Did the U.K., France? Any other currently functional democracies?
1) Is this a function of absolute wealth or relative wealth? If relative wealth, how does the West having more money reduce the rule of law elsewhere?
2) This is just a selection effect where cultures/institutions that were predisposed to democracy came to it first naturally and what we're seeing now is cultures/institutions that are not so inclined having democracy grafted onto them?
2.1) Is there something about the geographical/historical situation in Europe or the U.S. that predisposed it to functional democracy?
These are all positive questions which I think ought to inform the normative one you asked, Robin.
I view this phenomenon as a kind term confusion. When we say "democracy", we really mean the familiar, liberal, semi-capitalist structure with a steady rule of law.
We certainly don't mean literal popular sovereignty democracy, where the people vote on policies.
Interesting that the product of the proportion of fraudulent elections and the expected benefit of election fraud should be 1. I wonder if that's just a coincidence.
0
I considered forwarding it to him, but he is extremely skeptical of data in this form.
To add to the examples above; what does 'per capita income $2700+' actually select for? Is it income, or is it Europeans? The second possibility is just a bit confounding.... The data, properly considered, provokes more study, (which I don't have grants for) not conclusions.
Further, while I am short on geopolitical data, 'autocracies above $2700' sounds like China and Russia, both of which were recently communist.
In short, even if perfectly accurate, the article could be utterly misleading...or not, and it's exceptionally hard to tell the difference.
Also, you do know the actual answer for 'bringing democracy,' right? Power/prestige/self-validation. These would be exactly the same if democracy actually worked, too.
Mencius Moldbug sighting in 3..2..1...
What is democracy, Tomasz? North Korea is the "fter alpeople's" republic all.
Did U.S. democracy have these same problems when our per capita income was below $2,700? Did the U.K., France? Any other currently functional democracies?
1) Is this a function of absolute wealth or relative wealth? If relative wealth, how does the West having more money reduce the rule of law elsewhere?
2) This is just a selection effect where cultures/institutions that were predisposed to democracy came to it first naturally and what we're seeing now is cultures/institutions that are not so inclined having democracy grafted onto them?
2.1) Is there something about the geographical/historical situation in Europe or the U.S. that predisposed it to functional democracy?
These are all positive questions which I think ought to inform the normative one you asked, Robin.
I view this phenomenon as a kind term confusion. When we say "democracy", we really mean the familiar, liberal, semi-capitalist structure with a steady rule of law.
We certainly don't mean literal popular sovereignty democracy, where the people vote on policies.
Elections != Democracy, and article doesn't distinguish between the two at all. Even North Korea has "elections" of some sort.
Supporting democracy isn't about helping people- the usual reason given, at least amongst foreign policy academics, is that it's aboutpromoting peace.
Interesting that the product of the proportion of fraudulent elections and the expected benefit of election fraud should be 1. I wonder if that's just a coincidence.