Late 18th century. The chaos of the French Revolution arguably diluted its viability as an example to other countries, despite the structure of democratic government being objectively better, so you can argue that we were still on the cutting-edge through the 19th century, even, when most countries were still autocracies or constitutional monarchies with extremely questionable de jure voting systems.
I would argue as late as the 1950s, our democratic structure was closer to average than below-average, but by the 1970s, what gave the US more in-common with other developed democracies was that we had extensive practice with our democratic system; by then our structure was not just hopelessly outdated, but a structure that no one in their right mind would take seriously as a foundation for a new government. Come the fall of most of the single-party Soviet-backed regimes of the 1990s, and the only countries we actually beat out for being a ‘good democracy’ are ones that… well, are only questionably democracies to begin with. And even then, most of them have structures that are superior to our’s; only a tradition of civic participation has led us to hobble on as long as we have without becoming an outright authoritarian state.
Though this might be the last month I can say that, which says a lot about the failures of our shitshow of an attempt at implementing democracy.
The majority of the population could not vote, either due to their skin color, sex, or degree of property ownership (colony by colony/state by state as I recall).
The majority of the population could not vote, either due to their skin color, sex, or degree of property ownership (colony by colony/state by state as I recall).
Yeah, you should look into other governments of the period.
Just to be specific, your argument is that the United States of the late 18th century can be considered a “trail blazer” in terms of democratic achievement. You are agreeing to my assertion that the franchise can be used as a measure of democracy, and you are asserting that the United States was uniquely forward in this area. This follow up statement is limiting this to a comparison of similar governments of the 18th century?
Which is a comparison that makes complete sense. When you say that someone is leading the way, you are clearly referring to them being at the forefront at the time when they were leading the way. Any system that was a trail blazer 100+ years ago should be outdated by now, unless progress stopped or went backwards in the meantime.
Women were not specifically barred from voting in the United Kingdom until the Great Reform Act of 1832. This doesn’t mean that they voted often - and would have been practically barred in most circumstances, but it was possible in some. There were no bars on suffrage for black men in the United Kingdom at any point.
If we talk about representative power, we can talk about how the balance of power in Congress was unfairly weighed in favor of southern states through things such as the 2/3 Compromise (having large, non voting enslaved population.) There was no direct voting on Senate positions until a later amendment which I’m too stoned to bother looking up right now. Even if your ideal of democracy is the Athens of direct democracy - one man one vote - I don’t think the 18th century US was that spectacular.
Women were not specifically barred from voting in the United Kingdom until the Great Reform Act of 1832. This doesn’t mean that they voted often - and would have been practically barred in most circumstances, but it was possible in some. There were no bars on suffrage for black men in the United Kingdom at any point.
Before the reform act of 1832, something like 1% of the population of the UK could vote due to property requirements, stricter than any of the US states in the 1790s.
What time was that? (genuinely curious)
Late 18th century. The chaos of the French Revolution arguably diluted its viability as an example to other countries, despite the structure of democratic government being objectively better, so you can argue that we were still on the cutting-edge through the 19th century, even, when most countries were still autocracies or constitutional monarchies with extremely questionable de jure voting systems.
I would argue as late as the 1950s, our democratic structure was closer to average than below-average, but by the 1970s, what gave the US more in-common with other developed democracies was that we had extensive practice with our democratic system; by then our structure was not just hopelessly outdated, but a structure that no one in their right mind would take seriously as a foundation for a new government. Come the fall of most of the single-party Soviet-backed regimes of the 1990s, and the only countries we actually beat out for being a ‘good democracy’ are ones that… well, are only questionably democracies to begin with. And even then, most of them have structures that are superior to our’s; only a tradition of civic participation has led us to hobble on as long as we have without becoming an outright authoritarian state.
Though this might be the last month I can say that, which says a lot about the failures of our shitshow of an attempt at implementing democracy.
The majority of the population could not vote, either due to their skin color, sex, or degree of property ownership (colony by colony/state by state as I recall).
And how was the situation in the rest of the world?
Yeah, you should look into other governments of the period.
Just to be specific, your argument is that the United States of the late 18th century can be considered a “trail blazer” in terms of democratic achievement. You are agreeing to my assertion that the franchise can be used as a measure of democracy, and you are asserting that the United States was uniquely forward in this area. This follow up statement is limiting this to a comparison of similar governments of the 18th century?
Which is a comparison that makes complete sense. When you say that someone is leading the way, you are clearly referring to them being at the forefront at the time when they were leading the way. Any system that was a trail blazer 100+ years ago should be outdated by now, unless progress stopped or went backwards in the meantime.
Late 18th century, yes. And if I hear pop history myths about the Iroquois, I will be irritated.
Women were not specifically barred from voting in the United Kingdom until the Great Reform Act of 1832. This doesn’t mean that they voted often - and would have been practically barred in most circumstances, but it was possible in some. There were no bars on suffrage for black men in the United Kingdom at any point.
If we talk about representative power, we can talk about how the balance of power in Congress was unfairly weighed in favor of southern states through things such as the 2/3 Compromise (having large, non voting enslaved population.) There was no direct voting on Senate positions until a later amendment which I’m too stoned to bother looking up right now. Even if your ideal of democracy is the Athens of direct democracy - one man one vote - I don’t think the 18th century US was that spectacular.
It was 3/5 compromise, but you’re both right. Pug is more correct though.
Before the reform act of 1832, something like 1% of the population of the UK could vote due to property requirements, stricter than any of the US states in the 1790s.
Before any of us were alive. Some would say before centralized banking in the early 20th