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.

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Neither is the US. Electoral college & Gerrymandering have a similar effect. The US isn't without reason considered to be just a flawed democracy. But it's kinda besides the point, it's not that Deep 🐬, just a modern pop-culture reference.

[–] belastend@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 1 points 1 week ago

You're just being pedantic because the point being made flew completely over your head.