This surprises you? This is done in pretty much every European country. It's necessary too, because choosing properly is not easy with so many parties (31 in NL, 2017). I usually tweak my vote by interactive online versions of this pamphlet.
They do that in the US too. Or at least they did last time I checked. No one reads it. People watch ads on TV. “That guy said prop 104 hurts children. I like children. 104 is bad!” “The ads said prop 316 would cause me to lose my job, forget 316!” But- these things are complex and an ad saying “this hurts kids!” Could be talking about a bill to ban junk food in schools, supported by and backed by Libertarians, conservatives for freedom of industry, and the snack industry- and it could “hurt kids” by taking away the choice of junk food or not. So... it’s all relative. But people have enough trouble reading my comments. Most Americans aren’t going to read through bill after bill and proposition after proposition to make an informed vote. They’ll vote by advertisement or by party or by whoever they like or hate most.
Doubt me? With the most historically low approval rating in the history of the country, with over 100 broken promises- not promises that haven’t been addressed yet- broken, said one thing did another- more than any president of the 20th or 21st century and a higher ratio of failure to success than any president in recent history... our current president is polling as a contender for a second term. A guy we KNOW foreign powers have repeatedly conspired to get elected.... curious.
Lol. Cynical but often the case. Like many things though, it isn’t perfect but it is the best option we have so far. In America, we obviously have problems, many problems the rest of the world finds baffling. But the truth is, it is a price we pay for living a way that is unlike pretty much the rest of the world. I’m not aggrandizing and saying we live “better,” there are plenty of countries with less wealth disparity, less poverty, higher incomes, standards of living, or reported averages of satisfaction or happiness. Im saying that America is a very large country with a diversity of terrain and population largely peacefully coexisting with levels of freedom in ways we don’t see elsewhere.
Sweden, Norway, Finland, etc- beautiful countries, wonderful people. They have problems like everyone does- but people tend to be happy and taken care of and safe overall. But asides from size- these are also largely homogeneous countries with a single dominant cultural base in each country and shared elements with their neighbors. Many nations outside the US require immigrants to meet certain financial obligations or be approved by a community as suitable after a period of temporary residence before they can be made permanent residents. Measures like these help “keep the peace” by making sure that only like minded folks or agreeable types are allowed to join the nation.
In contrast- the United States is made of a vast spread of ethnicities and views with the only ideological requirements for citizens being that they must agree to put the US before any other country they may have ties to. And at that they just have to SAY they will- there are no monitors of that save if one engages actively in action like terrorism against the US.
So our democracy can be quite a mess as people of all types from all cultures with all sorts of fundamental ways of thinking all largely try to do what is “best” but simply can’t agree on what “best” is. The single unifying thread beyond being human- is being American. Sadly decades of prejudice and abuses have led many to feel excluded from America, or ashamed of it. Democracy only functions as a system when people are actively engaged in it. When people are barred from participation, when people refuse to participate, or when people are too darn lazy or self absorbed to actively participate beyond whatever they think will pay off for them in the short term- democracy becomes a farce, as we have started to see in recent decades. In the end- a country “by the people for the people” is only going to be as good as the “people” make it.
In my country (the Netherlands): ProDemos, which receives funding from the ministry of internal affairs. Quoting: "ProDemos is the ‘House for Democracy and the Rule of Law’. Our job is to help explain the systems that govern democracy and the rule of law, and to show what citizens themselves can do to exert political influence – at municipal, provincial, national and European level."
Well, maybe in some parts of the world, they do. And I feel sorry for you if you're from there. Now don't say "that's what they want you to believe", because I have a fairly unique perspective from one of the least corrupt countries in the world. But I'm sure you're gonna tell me, "that's what they want you to believe".
Actually, no, that's not what I was going to say. If there is a way to present an honest summary of the pros and cons of the given object being voted on, then this would be a very effective tool.
(BTW, I agree with your quote above about the best argument against democracy. To add to it, I believe it was Churchill who said it was the worst form of government except for all of the others.)
There is no way of listing pros and cons, because they're subjective, but the way they present each party's statements, in an easy to understand format, makes choosing much easier.
(BTW, I agree with your quote above about the best argument against democracy. To add to it, I believe it was Churchill who said it was the worst form of government except for all of the others.)