What changed to make it drop? The voting system in the U.S. hasn't changed, the first amendment is still in effect, media is independent (no equivalent of DW or BBC). I'm trying to find out what aspects did change to cause a ranking drop.
Not true at all. The minute the VRA was gutted, there were bills passed in nearly every Republican state to make it harder for PoC to vote. Look at the elections in Atlanta last month for example.
Election Day problems are hardly new to Georgia, where Republican officials have overseen voting procedures that have led to hours long lines, most recently during the 2018 governor’s contest, which Brian Kemp, a Republican who at the time was secretary of state and in charge of running the election, won by 50,000 votes over Stacey Abrams. Tuesday’s primary was also a test of the state’s preparations to hold an election during the coronavirus pandemic.
Voting is a deeply felt and politically intense issue in Georgia because of its long history of disenfranchising black voters. The governor’s race was marred by accusations of voter suppression, particularly of African-American and other minority voters, which Mr. Kemp denied.
You don’t have “one person, one vote” anyway. Rural states are over-represented in the Senate and Electoral College by design, without considering gerrymandering and other disenfranchisement tactics.
I think it's a pretty good measure to include. It can act like a catch-all for what other measures don't capture. And, as we've seen, it's a pretty good way to forecast changes not likely good for democracy.
I've noticed a correlation with poor opinion of the government and willingness to accept undemocratic actions. A lot of people give a cynical quip and check out.
When Biden gets elected, they'll change it back and celebrate a successful democratic transition. A restoration of human rights and liberalism.
The world will be wonderful again. The press will be free again. Maybe they'll even give him a peace prize in the first year, right before he launches several large wars and destroys several nations.
This is kind of ironic because one of the reasons the US and its government has generally been as successful is because of a distrust of democracy and the government. Democracy is just another term for mob rule. Just because it is rule by the will of the majority doesn't mean it is flawless. For example, a true democracy also has the ability to vote away the democracy. What the founders realized is that most forms of government had their problems so they set up a system of checks and balances to curb the worst of various styles of government they considered.
People from lesser populated regions can't trust a government based on population and people from highly populated regions can't trust a government based on equal geographic representation. Marry the two ideas to mitigate the impact of government.
Government is an institution that can never be just trusted because at the end of the day it's run by people, who may or may not have your best interests at heart.
You are mistaking cause and effect, I believe. If a government behaves in a way that earns trust, trust increases. If it behaves in a way that earns distrust, trust decreases.
I actually think that widespread perception that the government is corrupt increases corruption. If you think you can bribe an officer of the law, or a judge, then you might try. If an officer or judge believes that it wont' be reported or that nothing will happen because of it, they may ask for a bribe. If Republicans think Democrats are cheating in elections, then Republicans are going to cheat to even the odds.
Everything in the voting system has changed. Citizen's United, the voting rights act was neutered, gerrymandering is constitutional now in many states...
The status quo didn't change. Money was in politics before Citizen's United and it is after. The voting rights act remains in force, though some irrelevant points that no longer apply were allowed to no longer have to be enforced by the Supreme Court. I really don't see what practically changed.
The law. Are we arguing essentialist philosophy here? The things that were seen as implicit by cynics (and observation) were made explicit. We just know all of the megadonors by name now, and monitor their relationships with various candidates (and the ways those candidates can influence the donors' businesses, for possible investment opportunities.)
When you eliminate principles in law, society becomes unmoored. If they eliminate the First Amendment, will we just say "there wasn't ever really total freedom of speech anyway. Remember cancel culture?" That's the most useless possible internet-typical reaction to catastrophe.
Have you looked? Does asking for an ID to prove that you are a legal voter too much now? Did you know that everywhere in the world, except the U.S., you must prove that you are who you are before getting the ballot? There are some exceptions like the purple finger in Iraq, but those are extraordinary and are not examples of proper anything anyways.
Again, I ask, how are people kept from voting? If showing ID is an example, I'm sorry, that's just silly.
Article linked has many, many examples unrelated to voter ID.
I also reject your framing. Unlike some other countries, the United States has a constitutional prohibition on poll taxes, called the 24th Amendment. Regardless of what sophistry SCOTUS might hold, it is empirically self-evident that requiring only forms of ID that cost money is equivalent in outcome to having a poll tax.
This is just so ridiculous that "silly" is the only word to describe a simple requirement to prove that you have the right to vote as a step on the 24th amendment. It can only be demanded by people that want to rig elections.
> Did you know that everywhere in the world, except the U.S., you must prove that you are who you are before getting the ballot?
False. In Canada, a voter with ID can vouch for one other voter, whose name and address are recorded.
Also, you'd have a better point if voter ID laws were not combined with a well-documented campaign to make it more difficult for POC to get IDs. This is classic voter suppression - install a byzantine set of rules that unwanted demographics will have a harder time navigating.
Also, I may point out that disenfranchising eligible voters happens to be voter fraud - carried out by the state.
Fees, limited operating hours when you can get IDs, limited operating locations, limited utility of the ID (if you can't afford a car, paying money to get a driver's license is a bit of a harder sell, while offices issuing non-DL IDs may be hours away from you...)
Donald Trump, a political outsider, broke the stronghold of career politicians and was elected President. This event shocked the bi-partisan cabal of politicians and their support systems (including journalists and other intellectuals). This group has been continuously constructing narratives to undermine the highly democratic processes in USA that allowed Trump to achieve this breakthrough.
So USA is now a "flawed democracy" now, as its systems allowed an outsider to upset the status quo.
I've been trying to figure out the "assault on democracy" narrative ever since the 2016 election. It seems to have come out of nowhere, though probably boosted by the Russia Collusion tale. The reality, indeed, is that the wrong guy won. Democracy was expected to elect Hillary, but it failed to do that and is therefore flawed.
You do know we have a Senate and a unique system of voting? Did you know that in none of those European countries that have a parliament did the common people vote for their Prime Minister? Does that infuriate you even more?
I was providing you evidence of why people might think that. I am not a stakeholder in this conversation so I'm not sure what your "infurate" comment is meant to provoke.
