The only democracy is Switzerland. Switzerland solves the problem of populist tyrannical capture by having an Executive Council instead of a President.

More recently, I’ve come to the conclusion that all Republics are doomed to fail.

One should never let an “expert” make a decision for you. They will over time deceive you because they will always be a likely scapegoat.

It is much better to get it wrong yourself because then you can face the truth instead of constantly being on the watch for a scapegoat and damaging the dynamics of decision making.

But women weren't allowed to vote (in every canton) until 1991. There is a ban on new minarets being constructed (but not other tall buildings). The anti-immigration referendum couldn't be implemented as would have led to dramatic consequences for Switzerland's relationship with the EU.

From an outside perspective even Switzerland doesn't seem like a "true" democracy.

Does democracy mean something else to you? I think you are confusing your indoctrination of good and inclusive with democracy. Or Vice versa.

I’ve seen that alot.

People like to talk about good and inclusive as if they aren't universal values. Good is a value in every culture and religion; it's human nature; we aren't sociopaths. Just off the top of my head, there's the fundamentals of the Bible, 'love they neighbor, love thy god'. There's the Mandate of Heaven in Imperial China, which said only a good ruler keeps heaven's mandate and thus their power.

Inclusive is not only part of good, it's necessary to democracy: It requires respecting the votes and believing in the rights of everyone, and practically, freedom requires respecting your neighbor.

The question is, why work so hard to undermine good, including inclusiveness, democracy, and human rights? What an incredible heritage we've been given; what an optimistic history and what opportunity we have to build something even more amazing for the next generation. It takes an very cynical politics to try to undermine that - to give that up for yourself, for an entire generation, for our descendants. People from Washington to Lincoln to Churchill to Gandhi to MLK to all those who have died and struggled in service have worked to bequeath to us our free and good, in large part, society. With everything we've been given, what will we bequeath? Hate, authoritarianism, and climate change? What a shame our generation would be, among the others, if that was what we produced. The question is, what can we accomplish?

Constitutions provide inclusiveness, constitutions are not unique to any system of governance, and can be the basis for any form of governance

Collaboration with the people willing to abide by the system isn’t unique to any system of governance, and is required by all systems

Democracy is just rule by majority

It's not, by any meaningful definition, and not how people who study it think about it. Democracy's are rule by majority and, just as essentially, protection of minority rights. You need both or you have nothing. The Bill of Rights in the US Constitution is the best known example.

Authoritarian dictatorships and single party countries have constitutions that give the same guarantees as seen in the Bill of Rights and other areas of the US Constitution

You are conflating the definition of democracy with ideals you were taught to respect. This is indoctrination by definition of accepting a set of beliefs uncritically.

Instead of trying to argue that point or differences between constitutional countries, you could just drop your expanded definition of democracy in favor of the rule by majority one.

academics in democracies are viewing it uncritically too. democracy doesn't mean anything related to limitations of the government or a form of inclusivity that aspires to enfranchise everyone. it means rule of the eligible voting majority, just like when all states in the United States only allowed male land owners of Northwestern European descent vote, that was a democracy. All tweaks are adjectives, such as representative democracy, parliamentary democracy, etc.

I'm not responding to the pending questions you generated because they are aspirations from completely left field, used to support your warped aspiration view of a form of governance that has no specific name, that you dream of as right and correct which you also consider a non-existent inclusive democracy to be. I am just hoping you try to explain your view so that you see that on a standardized test, my answer would be the "more correct" choice than your. If you chose your own answer you would get points off.

The newest definition I’m aware of is “the original 51% attack”

The referendum wasn't on noise or the legality of minarets broadcasting sound though, it was on the structures themselves. Churches can still build steeples (or even noisy belltowers). I fail to see why the simple construction of a minaret harms anyone any more than say a steeple of a church of a different denomination. If anything it just seems like legislation to tell Muslims that they are not welcome in Switzerland.

I think it is exactly that and this should be their right.

Minarets do not build themselves. There would be very possibly some money and influence involved from countries that do not share Swiss people values.

But then why not address that by banning foreign funding of construction of religious buildings? If Swiss Muslims want to build a minaret on their mosque I personally don't see the harm. But it's clear that others disagree.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Edit: if you could please stop creating accounts like this and definitely stop creating accounts to break the site rules with, we'd be grateful.

Americans have long referred to themselves, quite proudly, as a democracy. The distinction is otherwise a technicality for political scientists.

A recent political trend has one group, which fears getting outvoted, saying that it's not, that it's a 'republic' (they, of course, that they won't be the ones excluded from power). But the distinction is theoretical - government by the people, for the people, of the people, to use just one phrase, is what defines the US and the US is a democracy. We the people created the government and make the law.

> More recently, I’ve come to the conclusion that all Republics are doomed to fail.

Well the evidence is pretty bad. The most stable, successful form of government in history is modern democracy. If you want failure, look at the disasters of authoritarian governments, with their civil wars, weak economies, and governing calamities (e.g., hyperinflation, needless wars, etc.).

In Switzerland you have 4 referendums a year where the demos, the people, make decisions in concert.

In most republics, all you get to do is elect a representative. Some US states do hold referendums like California. This means that some republics do have representatives and the people share decision making power. This however does not happen at the level of the American Federal government. So far as I know, you can only vote on having someone speak for you and you are not part of the decision. These representatives are much more susceptible to capture than the entire demos.

It would be nice if the etymology of Rep in Republic came from Representation because that is all you get for sure. Sadly, that is not the case.

As to the stability of governments—I would also agree that a Republic is more robust and long lived than a tyranny. However, I still hold that a Republic is likely to end in tyranny because the incentive and the likelihood to capture becomes enticing and likely.

We do not disagree here. Would like to know if the distinction between the decision making power of a Swiss citizen and the decision making power of an American citizen seem meaningfully different to you as they do to me. The difference becomes even more stark if you compare the Dominican Republic and Switzerland as the Dominican Republic has even less democratic aspects than the US Federal Government (which incidentally has fewer Democratic characteristics than US states)

You should check out ballots from around the U.S. There is far more than "a representative" on them.

> These representatives are much more susceptible to capture than the entire demos.

I'm not sure that's true. Recent history hasn't shown the public does well with complex issues - that's why it's good to hire someone to focus on them.

The first point dosen’t really do anything for me because I did cite California as one of many US states holding a referendum.

The 2nd point is a more interesting debate and it may involve some preference.

For my money, I would much rather be Swiss than Singaporean.

Swiss trains run on time and the infrastructure is plenty good compared to Singapore. You could switch this out for a more free and still very competent state like Taiwan.

Of note: questions of citizenship in Switzerland are decided at the Canton, not the Federal level. Your neighbors are making the decision as to whether they want you to become a citizen. Not some far away bureaucrat.

An argument for your stated preference of more expertise is hinted at in this review in what I think is the book of the year, “The Premonition” by Michael Lewis. They cite a book “10% Less Democracy.” There is some merit to this in the short run—but in the long run, I would rather be Swiss. (And I would be on the side where I would be happy to have the union expect more responsibility from me. For example, I would not be in favor of shortening the time of service.)

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/06/th...

The efficacy of peaceful protests in enacting change is orthogonal to whether the US is a democracy "in any form" or not.

If you mean, it doesn't match theoretical models of democracy, of course: Reality is messy. To say there's no democracy in the US doesn't match my experience of my community, state, and country.

I guess Canada isn't a democracy either, it's a parliamentary constitutional monarchy. Oh and I guess Germany isn't either, it's federal parliamentary republic.

That does not mean anything. A republic has more stability because of (typically) a constitution which guarantees principles, whereas a democracy can turn into "whatever the current majority decides". A democracy can easily turn into a dictatorship or at least an authoritarian regime just through voting. A republic, much less likely without a bloody revolution.