AHC >70% of the worlds population lives under a full democracy.

Your challenge if you choose to accept it is to, with a pod between 1800 and 1950, to have at least 71% of the worlds population living under a full democracy (ie. full human rights, and freedoms, and universal sufferage)
 
Your challenge if you choose to accept it is to, with a pod between 1800 and 1950, to have at least 71% of the worlds population living under a full democracy (ie. full human rights, and freedoms, and universal sufferage)
What does "Full Human Rights" mean exactly? :confused:

What are these Freedoms?

How universal is universal? Voting rights for prisoners? Those 16 and over? Expats?

I mean, you could argue that currently nobody lives in a full democracy today.
 
What does "Full Human Rights" mean exactly? :confused:

What are these Freedoms?

How universal is universal? Voting rights for prisoners? Those 16 and over? Expats?

I mean, you could argue that currently nobody lives in a full democracy today.

Universal as in everyone who is a citizen of voting age in good standing (ie. not in prision)

Full human rights= the government doesn't use force upon it's peaceful citizens (ie. attacking a peaceful protest with the army would violate this. Attacking rebels wouldn't) dosent tourtore it's own citizens. Dosent censors things except in cases (ie. wartime security, important military information etc.) (not including social issues like gay marriage Becuase that would be too difficult.)

Freedoms= right to vote, freedom of speech, press, and assembly, freedom of religion. Protection from unlawful government action. Right to critique government etc.

Those would probbaly be the minimum.
 
The other nitpicky question is I wonder if you want 71% percent of the population to live under a single democratic state or can it be multiple democracies.

Then I see two possible ways of doing it. Either a super happy people's union of socialist soviet republics which turns means no Stalin and no Lenin (also known as the SHPUSSR).

Or a League of Nations that has a democratically elected leader. Made up of the commonwealth, France, and the US where institutional racism has been ended. Also the democratic League of Nations has no power but it is still a democracy.
 
What does "Full Human Rights" mean exactly? :confused:

What are these Freedoms?

How universal is universal? Voting rights for prisoners? Those 16 and over? Expats?

I mean, you could argue that currently nobody lives in a full democracy today.

I assume he means up to the standards of modern first world democracies or better.
 
Would it be cheating if there was a nuclear war that engulfed USSR, PRC, Pakistan and India leaving most of the living people in the world in Europe and the Americas.
 
something to pay mind to, is that many of the organisations that create those global rankings have a certain ammount of bias towards a certain system ... and an unpropotionally large group of them is on the American Right Wing and as the US politial equillibium point are allready rather heavily towards the right, at least in the view of most of the rest of 'first world countries', so things such as strict gun laws can be listed as being undemocratic or unfree, while repression of sexual or religious freedom (gay marriage being illegal, uneven rights for the different religious groups) aren't accounted for. Pay that and mind and take from that what you will
 
for simplicity sake we could just use the Democracy index. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index .
According to that their is 25 countries that are full democracy. That have 11,3% of the world population.

Sorry, but a an index that consider France to be a flawed democracy and the US (ie, the country were it is legal to corrupt representative) to be better is laughable. But given that it is made by the Economist, i wouldn't expect more from those francophobic assholes.
 
Sorry, but a an index that consider France to be a flawed democracy and the US (ie, the country were it is legal to corrupt representative) to be better is laughable. But given that it is made by the Economist, i wouldn't expect more from those francophobic assholes.

Yeah that's baffling :confused:

At most the U.S. is a flawed democracy...
 
Would it be cheating if there was a nuclear war that engulfed USSR, PRC, Pakistan and India leaving most of the living people in the world in Europe and the Americas.
India is the world's largest democracy. Why the heck are you putting them with China, Pakistan and the USSR?


something to pay mind to, is that many of the organisations that create those global rankings have a certain ammount of bias towards a certain system ... and an unpropotionally large group of them is on the American Right Wing and as the US politial equillibium point are allready rather heavily towards the right, at least in the view of most of the rest of 'first world countries', so things such as strict gun laws can be listed as being undemocratic or unfree, while repression of sexual or religious freedom (gay marriage being illegal, uneven rights for the different religious groups) aren't accounted for. Pay that and mind and take from that what you will
Yep. This has bothered me too.
 
Would it be cheating if there was a nuclear war that engulfed USSR, PRC, Pakistan and India leaving most of the living people in the world in Europe and the Americas.

One of those states, is not like the other ones
One of those states doesn't belong.


Seriously, India isn't perfect as a democracy but putting it on a list with Pakistan, the PRC and the USSR is just ridiculous.
 


One of those states, is not like the other ones
One of those states doesn't belong.


Seriously, India isn't perfect as a democracy but putting it on a list with Pakistan, the PRC and the USSR is just ridiculous.

In any case, if that happened, the surviving parts of the world will be under so much stress they will be under permanent states of emergency, voiding their claim to he democratic anyway.
 
I said for simplicity sake. Not that it would be perfect. But Usa is close to dropping down to flawed democracy having a score of 8,11 and india is quite close to full democracy index at 7,52(it's probably the cast system that keeps them down). But the democracy index is probably still the best thing we got if were going to rank countries.
 
I said for simplicity sake. Not that it would be perfect. But Usa is close to dropping down to flawed democracy having a score of 8,11 and india is quite close to full democracy index at 7,52(it's probably the cast system that keeps them down). But the democracy index is probably still the best thing we got if were going to rank countries.

It's probably corruption and lax human rights enforcement rather than "the caste system"
 
Top