Australia has quite a few, especially around Melbourne. And they are all the most expensive places to buy or rent. Made up for the fact you save a fortune not needing a car.
> Also there are barely any walkable neighborhoods in America
There aren't enough, a lot more walkable neighborhoods would be quite welcome.
But it's an oft-repeated exaggeration that they don't and can't exist. There are tons of walkable neighborhoods in the US. Every place I've lived in California (four) has been a very walkable. My current suburban location is extremely walkable to pretty much anything I could need (and it was built in the 1990s, so it's not some pre-car era relic).
On the contrary, these things are on a spectrum. In many places elections are not fair, but they are also not completely controlled either -- e.g. someone can bias the election results in their favor by 10 percentage points but still lose if something happened recently that caused their support to drop by 30 percentage points. That is the reality in many places (and that type of unfair biasing happens in bastions of democracy in the West too, e.g. gerrymandering). The peaceful transfer of power is much more crucial than the election being *perfectly* fair (because we hardly have perfectly fair elections -- "mostly" fair and "well representative" is what we can hope for most of the time).
To add on to krastonov's explaination, to help ensure peaceful transitions of power, lots of younger democracies like South Korea will give outgoing presidents a blanket pardon of any crimes.
That way, you don't have an incentive to pull a Netenyahu and Obran and constantly try to remain in power to maintain criminal immunity.
The elections themselves in Turkey are free and fair enough. It is the campaign part that isn't. Things happen but it's nowhere like Russia for example, the civil society is very active and the turnout fluctuates between 80% to 90%.
So the vote count will be correct eventually even though someone can try something. There are some suspicions about the integrity of races with very small margins but overall the results are the results which people voted for.
> can be attributed to more unhealthy diet and less walking, which is on the flip side due to US's economic success - affordance for more food and richer food, as well as affordance for car as transportation.
people in the US aren't driving because they can afford cars - they have to drive because they don't have any other viable options due to the way american cities are designed
There are walkable US cities, and one can move to NY, Chicago, Boston, Seattle or its outskirts. However, people choose to stay in the suburbs because they can afford it.
Yes. I live in the suburbs in the outskirts of a major city. I might consider more seriously the trade-offs of actually living in the city if I could justify the cost of living increase.
