American Two-Party System: What the fuck?

[TremcladClock]

Well that opens the debate on what is 'stability' and whether its good for a country.

Stability is relative to a country's Human Development Index, encompassing things such as general peace, employment, education, GDP per capita, health, etc. I can't imagine why you'd deny these things.

[RomanClock]

Ive never heard of this statistic. :\
Also broken link.

[TremcladClock]

Ive never heard of this statistic. :\
Also broken link.

Democracy Index
Human Development Index
Global Peace Index
Happy Planet Index

These are all full of interesting statistics. The top places in these lists are generally held by the aforementioned constitutional monarchies and parliamentary democracies.

[RomanClock]

Democracy Index
Human Development Index
Global Peace Index
Happy Planet Index

These are all full of interesting statistics. The top places in these lists are generally held by the aforementioned constitutional monarchies and parliamentary democracies.

They are interesting but I wouldn't bother to use such subjective scores to base my opinions on.

[RomanClock]

You have yet to give your opinion what you meant with,

I mean: what do you define stability as (which he answered) and whether its a good thing. He sited the stats as his bases and that's fine. I would base stability mainly on the balance of the peoples power vs the governments power rather than factors that may or may not affect stability (in my opinion).
I look at stability like this: a country governed by a powerful government is generally stable in the sense that the government can basically do what it wants and the people have to accept it. On the other side is of course anarchy. I think a good amount of stability is when people get motivated enough to do something against the government, he government has to accept it instead of the people accepting the government. So, even by my definition, constitutional monarchies would be more 'stable', but that doesn't mean better.

[TremcladClock]

I mean: what do you define stability as (which he answered) and whether its a good thing. He sited the stats as his bases and that's fine. I would base stability mainly on the balance of the peoples power vs the governments power rather than factors that may or may not affect stability (in my opinion).
I look at stability like this: a country governed by a powerful government is generally stable in the sense that the government can basically do what it wants and the people have to accept it. On the other side is of course anarchy. I think a good amount of stability is when people get motivated enough to do something against the government, he government has to accept it instead of the people accepting the government. So, even by my definition, constitutional monarchies would be more 'stable', but that doesn't mean better.

So you think constitutional monarchies are more dictatorial than presidential republics?

A stable administrative system is one that leans far enough to the left to adequately look after its citizens while leaning far enough to the right to keep them in line. Anarchy is chaos; Totalitarianism plants the seeds of revolution.

Here is a picture of stability:

[RomanClock]

So you think constitutional monarchies are more dictatorial than presidential republics?

Yes, that is my opinion.