Hacker News Reader

We are objectively an oligarchy; there's no other explanation that makes sense.

objectively your post is false.

the US has a flawed democracy, but a democracy nonetheless: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

consider the rest of the countries in that list

That index seems flawed. The methodology is not transparent. The Economist is not going to accuse its own ownership of oligarchy.

I mean, the UK isn't exactly doing _great_, if you go by the thesis that they're showing favouritism. It's about 0.5 points above the US, mostly due to better electoral process and political participation (which seems... fair?) but 1.5 points behind the highest.

For what it's worth, the UK also does better than the US in the Freedom House index, which is _funded by the US government_.

In what way do you feel it's flawed? Based on what you know of the methodology, what would you change?

A state can be both a de facto oligarchy and a flawed democracy. Thus, your comment does nothing to rebut the GP assertion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com