• belastend@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 month ago

    Haha, good one. Neither were democracies in the modern sense, in both cases voting right were so restrictive that large parts of the population did not matter.

    Imagine a first past the post system but instead of states, you are grouped together by income.

    And instead of voting simulaneously, the richest blocks votes first.

    And now imagine, that 50% of the american populace gets one of 150 electors.

    The vast majority of romans IN ROME never got to vote on any of the important positions.

      • belastend@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        You compare a flawed democracy to a non-democracy. Imagine moving the poorer half of America to one state, giving that state a single elector and letting them only vote if the vote so far has been perfectly split.

        The US is on paper a flawed democracy and in reality an even more flawed democracy. The roman democracy did not even exist on paper.

        Maybe its not that deep, i just don’t like when people call Rome a democracy, when it did really come close to one. Or compare them to modern systems of government.