David Frum: What If the Allies Had Lost World War One?

[crazy canuck]

I don't think you can call yourself a democracy without women suffrage myself; that's roughly 50% of the population being denied participation in the political process. The whole point of a democracy is to allow subjects' participation in the entirety of the political process (no powers reserved for unelected officials), so a significant franchise is necessary.

Since the law which determines when a person magically transforms from a child to an adult is entirely arbitrary would you agree with the proposition that no democracies exist according to your definition.  After all 100% of people under the age of majority cannot participate in the elections of the people in power who set the majority and a large number of other laws which affect everyone under the age of majority.

[celedhring]

I don't think you can call yourself a democracy without women suffrage myself; that's roughly 50% of the population being denied participation in the political process. The whole point of a democracy is to allow subjects' participation in the entirety of the political process (no powers reserved for unelected officials), so a significant franchise is necessary.

Since the law which determines when a person magically transforms from a child to an adult is entirely arbitrary would you agree with the proposition that no democracies exist according to your definition.  After all 100% of people under the age of majority cannot participate in the elections of the people in power who set the majority and a large number of other laws which affect everyone under the age of majority.

No, since the only requisite for accession to franchise is just to get old, which will happen to everybody but the most unfortunate.

And I'm amenable to discuss where the barrier should be, but ultimately it has to be set at some point unless we want toddlers voting.

[crazy canuck]

I don't think you can call yourself a democracy without women suffrage myself; that's roughly 50% of the population being denied participation in the political process. The whole point of a democracy is to allow subjects' participation in the entirety of the political process (no powers reserved for unelected officials), so a significant franchise is necessary.

Since the law which determines when a person magically transforms from a child to an adult is entirely arbitrary would you agree with the proposition that no democracies exist according to your definition.  After all 100% of people under the age of majority cannot participate in the elections of the people in power who set the majority and a large number of other laws which affect everyone under the age of majority.

No, since the only requisite for accession to franchise is just to get old, which will happen to everybody but the most unfortunate.

But laws are being created which govern the conduct of people without the franchise.  Doesn't that run contrary to your definition of democracy?  Put a different way, what if the age limit for voting was set at 50 instead of 18 or whatever it is in your country?  Again the only requirement for voting would be getting to that age.

You edited your post after I saw it.

And I'm amenable to discuss where the barrier should be, but ultimately it has to be set at some point unless we want toddlers voting.

But now you are talking about determining competence to vote which is a different matter.

[celedhring]

But the voting age isn't set at 50, but 18. With that, our societies are trying to maximize the franchise, not restrict it. So I don't think it goes against my belief that a democracy has to seek the participation of the maximum amount of people possible.

We can discuss if 18 is the best choice, or if setting a catch all age for everybody is the best choice (I think it's an imperfect compromise, since deciding who or who is competent to vote on an individual basis is a very dangerous practice). But I think our democracies for the most part are maximizing the amount of people that can participate in the political process*.

*I'm of the opinion that any legal resident should be allowed to vote, regardless of nationality, but I guess we'll cross that bridge eventually.

[crazy canuck]

But the voting age isn't set at 50, but 18. With that, our societies are trying to maximize the franchise, not restrict it. So I don't think it goes against my belief that a democracy has to seek the participation of the maximum amount of people possible.

We can discuss if 18 is the best choice, or if setting a catch all age for everybody is the best choice (I think it's an imperfect compromise, since deciding who or who is competent to vote on an individual basis is a very dangerous practice). But I think our democracies for the most part are maximizing the amount of people that can participate in the political process*.

*I'm of the opinion that any legal resident should be allowed to vote, regardless of nationality, but I guess we'll cross that bridge eventually.

But your point seems to be that no system of government can be called a democracy if any of its citizens who should be eligible to vote are restricted from voting.  Essentially the same claim Frum is making. 

But isn't your concession that the voting age might be something lower than 18 also an admission that people who should be eligible to vote are no restricted from voting?

I agree that the ideal democratic model is one which has the highest possible participation.  But that does not mean that a democratic form of government is not obtained until that goal is achieved.

[dps]

*I'm of the opinion that any legal resident should be allowed to vote, regardless of nationality, but I guess we'll cross that bridge eventually.

I've posted about this before, but at one time some US states allowed residents who weren't US citizens to vote.  This practice seems to have been ended everywhere by about 1920.

[Berkut]

I agree that the ideal democratic model is one which has the highest possible participation.  But that does not mean that a democratic form of government is not obtained until that goal is achieved.

Nobody disputes that - but this is a silly argument for you to make. That as long as there is anyone not allowed to vote, then effectively it is all the same in regards to any argument about whether ENOUGH people are allowed to vote to call it a democracy. If you deny 5%, then it is the same as if you deny 75%.

Because that argument from extremes works the other way - it forces you to concede that even a country that only allows a very tiny fraction of people to vote is a "democracy" as well. In the UK pre-1918 only men who owned land could vote, resulting in 40% of otherwise eligible men to NOT be allowed to vote. You claim that this does not mean it is not a democracy.

That actually isn't a bad argument, as long as the argument is based on some reasonable acceptance that there is some line somewhere, but that in your opinion it is lower than the given line. But that is NOT your argument, your argument is that as long as someone is voting, then it is a democracy. If the law was that only men who owned significant property could vote, resulting in 3% of the men only being eligible, your argument would demand that we accept that THAT is a democracy as well.

You don't want to concede that though, since you already raised the "Compare to the US!" thing, which of course if we go into comparing relative levels of participation, it makes the UK in 1914 look bad, which I suppose comes as a surprise to you.

Of course we know the answer - it is a range. Even in a "perfect" democracy, we all accept that some people should not be allowed to vote - children are a good example.

So it becomes a grey argument, predicated around a decision that must be made about how much enfranchisement is needed to constitute a democratic outcome. I think we could all agree in general that the goal is to make sure that there is reasonable representation for all social and economic classes within the body politic.

That means perfectly reasonable arguments can be made for various levels of participation needed to call a nation a "democracy". There is no clear and fast "rule". Personally, if someone said "The US was not a democracy in 1910 because large numbers of women could not vote" I might not agree with that view, but I certainly would not dismiss it as ridiculous. There is a very valid point being made there.

And if you leave your emotions out of it, it is pretty easy to see that an argument that a nation that at some point decided that 21 million ought to be allowed to vote, but prior to that point only allowed 7 million people to vote, was not much of a democracy BEFORE that point is hardly "absurd". Especially when those it was denying the right to vote had a very vested interest in the political process and a crucial need for representation, and those who could vote had a very vested interest in keeping them from voting.

[Valmy]

I don't think you can call yourself a democracy without women suffrage myself; that's roughly 50% of the population being denied participation in the political process. The whole point of a democracy is to allow subjects' participation in the entirety of the political process (no powers reserved for unelected officials), so a significant franchise is necessary.

So Democracy was invented by Finland in 1907 after all. We need to go back and retro-fit this definition onto all history.

[Eddie Teach]

So Democracy was invented by Finland in 1907 after all. We need to go back and retro-fit this definition onto all history.

Wyoming had women's suffrage in 1890. 

[Valmy]

Move over Athens. We have a new cradle for Democracy.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

I wonder if this topic would have been about a German victory in WW1 if it had been titled: "which is the most democratic country in 1914: UK or USA?"
I guess we'll never know. :p

[Berkut]

I don't think you can call yourself a democracy without women suffrage myself; that's roughly 50% of the population being denied participation in the political process. The whole point of a democracy is to allow subjects' participation in the entirety of the political process (no powers reserved for unelected officials), so a significant franchise is necessary.

So Democracy was invented by Finland in 1907 after all. We need to go back and retro-fit this definition onto all history.

Not what is being said at all - once could make the argument however that Finland in 1907 (if that is actually the first example of true women's suffrage) was the first time the ideal of democracy were realized in a practical extent such that the resulting nation could truly be called "democratic". That is not at all an unreasonable argument, and is in fact an argument that has been made many, many times - namely by thos wfighting for women's suffrage, for example.

[Berkut]

I don't think you can call yourself a democracy without women suffrage myself; that's roughly 50% of the population being denied participation in the political process. The whole point of a democracy is to allow subjects' participation in the entirety of the political process (no powers reserved for unelected officials), so a significant franchise is necessary.

So Democracy was invented by Finland in 1907 after all. We need to go back and retro-fit this definition onto all history.

Not what is being said at all - once could make the argument however that Finland in 1907 (if that is actually the first example of true women's suffrage) was the first time the ideal of democracy were realized in a practical extent such that the resulting nation could truly be called "democratic". That is not at all an unreasonable argument, and is in fact an argument that has been made many, many times - namely by thos wfighting for women's suffrage, for example.

I wonder if this topic would have been about a German victory in WW1 if it had been titled: "which is the most democratic country in 1914: UK or USA?"
I guess we'll never know. :p

It is unfortunate that people let their emotions derail on otherwise interesting discussion.

ZOMG HE SAID THE UK WAS NOT A DEMOCRACY! GET A NOOSE!

[Kleves]

I assume that a CP victory after 1917 can't happen if the US enters the war.  Without US entry, I suppose it could happen, but a peace in the West by mutual exhaustion could maybe be more likely.

That's an interesting question - what would have happened if the US didn't enter the war? I don't know if that would have much impact on the Austrians or the Turks, so Germany would likely still be shackled to a couple of corpses that would collapse eventually. On the other hand, it means that the Germans would not necessarily launch a major spring offensive (or at least not the offensive that was historically launched) in 1918, and, if it did, the British and the French must needs have had a more difficult time stopping the offensive and pushing the Germans back afterward.

[Berkut]

I assume that a CP victory after 1917 can't happen if the US enters the war.  Without US entry, I suppose it could happen, but a peace in the West by mutual exhaustion could maybe be more likely.

That's an interesting question - what would have happened if the US didn't enter the war? I don't know if that would have much impact on the Austrians or the Turks, so Germany would likely still be shackled to a couple of corpses that would collapse eventually. On the other hand, it means that the Germans would not necessarily launch a major spring offensive (or at least not the offensive that was historically launched) in 1918, and, if it did, the British and the French must needs have had a more difficult time stopping the offensive and pushing the Germans back afterward.

It depends on what you mean by "the US didn't enter the war".

Does the US continue to fund the war? If not, the Entente collapses immediately.

Which is kind of why the entire idea of the US NOT entering the war in some fashion is a little silly - by 1917 the US had so heavily invested in an Entente victory our entry was almost inevitable.