Relative Democracy of Major powers in 1911

Anderman

Donor
Did you look at a map of Germany in - say - 1900?
Prussia actually had both. 65% of the "size of state by area" (350,000 square kilometers out of 540,000 square kilometers for the whole of Germany in 1871) and roughly 60-65% of the population in 1900.

The Southern German states would have never accepted a unified German country in 1871 if Prussia had insisted on a 2/3 majority everywhere. So Bismarck accepted a "reduced" role for Prussia in the upper chamber. 17 votes means that Prussia on its own could veto federal laws. But it also means that more "liberal" states (Baden , Wuerttemberg, the Hanse towns for example) had the same opportunity.

Election laws varied in the 25 member states and likewise the authority of a King, Duke, etc. varied in the member states.
Ludwig II of Bavaria certainly seems to indicate that a government wasn´t afraid to get rid of a ruler?

We both have it right at least partial the number of votes of each state goes back to the German Confederation. And with Austria Prussian hadn´t 60-65% of the area of the GF. After the German War of 1866 Austria the GF was dissolved and Prussia took the votes of Hannover , Hesse, Holstein, Nassau and the Frankfurt and got 17 votes in the North German Confederation and later in the Empire.

But i agree with you that this was a limitation of Prussia power.
The election lawas varied indeed in the states but lot of states had their own second chambers with unelected or appointed Nobles, Bishops etc.
But overall i think that the German Empire was as democratic as the UK.
 
I wasn't comparing directness of the election. You're right that the U.S. system is more direct-but it's also ludicrous. You can have a candidate who gets less votes in a basic one on one election with another candidate, and still becomes president through the Electoral College. That would seem to violate any standard of democracy and majority election.

Whilst I'm opposed to direct election of a Head of State/Head of Government (I prefer the Westminster system), I disagree with the idea that the weighting of the Electoral College towards smaller states in necessarily a bad thing; in fact, this is in fact the whole idea of the Electoral College, to prevent a 'tyranny of the majority' domination of the smaller states (Wyoming, Montana, etc) by the larger states (California, New York, etc).

Similarly here in Australia, our Upper House, the Senate has an equal number of Senators from all states, so that New South Wales (over7 million people) gets the same number of Senators as Tasmania (approx 500 000 people). This is entirely fair in my opinion, as it acts as a counter-balance to the Lower House, the House of Representatives, where the number of representatives is based entirely on population.

I can see your point too, but IMHO, two of the major deficiences of the UK's democracy (which continue to exist to varying extents to this day) are the 'tyranny of the majority' issue and the 'elective dictatorship' issue, that arise out of the excessively majoritarian nature of the British political system.
 
Top