Reddit reviews Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries
We found 5 Reddit comments about Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Arend Lijphart is probably the biggest name in political science when it comes to constitutional design. He outlines two dimensions which democracies can be centralized or decentralized. Check out his seminal book Patterns of Democracy.
As for your second question, I would look into political histories that cover the progressive period in American history. This is where you start to get reforms like the primary, initiatives, referenda, recall, and the like.
If you're interested in reading about how party systems work in principle and practice, I would recommend the book Patterns of Democracy by Arend Lijphart. You can get it for only eight bucks on Amazon.
Try this
If you really want to know about how legislatures work, I cannot recommend Patterns of Democracy by Arend Lijphart strongly enough. It's one of the standard texts in modern political science and explains all the major features of representative democracy including party formation, relationship to the executive, district composition, and more.
>The thing is, I'm not confused at all about my arguments. I'm not the one holding beliefs here.
>>The opposite of being moderates is being extremists.
>> But, for most cases, those can be bundled into a "moderate" portion for not agreeing on everything on their particular side rulebook.
>>The vast majority of governments on modern democracies are either from center-right or center-left parties, usually swinging from one to the other. It has been like that for decades. Parties on extreme right or extreme left fail to gather enough support and seldom win elections for that.
That's not linked to an understanding of economics, politics, or even civil society. But you're free to hold whatever belief you want.
>Because your criticisms aren't based on evidence.
They... Actually are but I highly doubt you've read about such books to ground your argument in reality. But you're free to hold whatever beliefs you want.
>You seem to think I claim moderates are a majority because people would naturally tend to moderation in face of two extremes, while I actually argue that the majority are moderates because in most modern democracies the people ellect center-right or center-left governments, and have been doing so for the past decades, with few notable examples.
That's still a fallacy because for America for example, the majority of black Americans have been disenfranchised in a number of ways for centuries. Likewise, the Irish and the Scots would have a bone to pick about their governments because of how they're to blame for things such as the Brexit even though it's not of their doing.
The Middle East has been a constant issue of struggle from Egypt to Saudi Arabia and understanding how such issues arise would take far more to learn than claiming people are moderates and calling it a day.
>The political spectrum in each country may be skewed a little on certain subjects. Things like healthcare, education and justice system are highly debatable, and different cointries will hold particular views on there subjects that may not apply to other countries.
You fail to see the nuance even though it's certainly connected.
Conservatives of one particular group fall into the position of defending healthcare even though it's helpful to them while another one doesn't. That won't apply if you ignore what makes people go against their own interests. You can't get that from a "moderate/extremism" view which has been my point.
>When I mention SJWs are more extreme to the left, it's because themselves usually identify as such. Otherwise why would they label anyone who fails to align with their ridiculous ideas as "alt-right", "right winger" or "reactionary"?
That still goes to the point that you have a conflation of liberal and socialist... One that "extreme left" won't cover.
>You make general statements about a subject that is only tangentially tied to the original argumentation (extremists repel moderates), arguing that moderates are not a majority simply because moderation on each country means different things.
The only thing I pointed out was the flaw in your argument and it makes your entire way of looking at an issue flawed as a result. It's not moderates that repel extremists. Far from. People organize to repel the worst in their community and that's not what you can get with this overly simplistic and individualistic version of what you're saying.
The only reason you'll get such extremism is because they were created by a repression of communal input into the rejection of the most violent and brutal machinations of any type of society. You won't get gangs if you allow most people to have access to legal justice in some form. You won't get terrorists if those people are given something to fight for besides their own lives. Dealing with problems of poverty, economic inequality, and colonialism will give you far more than somehow believing everyone is well off but suddenly turns to extremism because they don't get their way.
But then again, Toqueville has an entire chapter or two about how slavery would undermine America and lead them into a civil war. What did he know?