AMERICA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY!!!

[targetman377]

read the constitution.....




alright carry on everyone!!

[BigBallinStalin]

It's a democracy in the common-sense meaning of the word.

Glad I could clear this up.

[targetman377]

nope a democracy is ALL citizens voting for everything. basic Majority wins there is no. electorate

[Metsfanmax]

I thoroughly enjoy it when people utilize semantics to obfuscate meaningful discourse.

[KoolBak]

I like it when people use obfuscate in a sentence.

[WILLIAMS5232]

i'd rather communicate on a 7th grade ( US ) reading level so everyone could stay interested in the topic without having to consantly open tabs to check meanings of words. after all its a forum on a gaming website. no judgements need to be taken to heart.

[BigBallinStalin]

nope a democracy is ALL citizens voting for everything. basic Majority wins there is no. electorate

Ah, so when someone says, "I like democracy," you immediately assume that they favor having all family decisions done by a simple majority?

"What should we eat today?"
"I dunno. We'll have to hold a vote among the 300+ million people to see."
"...."
"Hey, it's democracy!"

[tzor]

read the constitution.....

Nobody reads the constitution these days. Not even the Supreme Court.

[tzor]

i'd rather communicate on a 7th grade ( US ) reading level so everyone could stay interested in the topic without having to consantly open tabs to check meanings of words. after all its a forum on a gaming website. no judgements need to be taken to heart.

OK. Here is the 7th grade version.
The United States is a REPUBLIC.
In a republic people elect representatives to represent them.

In the original Constitution only the House of Representatives was directly elected by the people.
The Senate was elected by state legislatures (which we presume were elected by the people).
The President was elected by the Electoral College (which was elected by the people).
The Supreme Court is chosen by the President with the advice of the Senate (see above).

Currently only #2 has changed, by amendment to the Constitution.

Now are the "several states" Democracies? Well that really does depend. Many states have what are known as Referendums and that changes things. No such mechanism exists on the Federal level, although there was a little pretend version put out by the White House several years ago.

[WILLIAMS5232]

i really hate it when the white house pretends. which seems to be the case most of the time. at least from my perspective.

anyway, the way i see it is if you want to be free(er) go move to some little dink town where you cant make any money and no one cares about you. if you want to make more money, hire a babysitter (govt) to help look after you so you can keep making the money. (contributing)

edit; in a nutshell. the higher the population the less favorable the perceived democracy

[targetman377]

In my own judgment i feel that when descousing political thought or ideals of politics it helps to be on the same page. Many places in life you don't need to be that precises. However when talking politics it is better so no one mistakes what you mean. Look at the word freedom What does that mean? freedom from oppression? freedom from anarchy? freedom to live a peaceful life by means of security? Just as people look at the word differently when you say democracy i understand most people are using it to refer to america. However what then where the Greeks? so in order to have a rational debate upon political ideas we need to have standers


(also a big pet peeve of mine i know to many people who actually don't know the difference between a republic and a democracy.) AND I HATE STUPID!!!

[Serbia]

descousing

AND I HATE STUPID!!!

Bollocks.

[BigBallinStalin]

In my own judgment i feel that when descousing political thought or ideals of politics it helps to be on the same page. Many places in life you don't need to be that precises. However when talking politics it is better so no one mistakes what you mean. Look at the word freedom What does that mean? freedom from oppression? freedom from anarchy? freedom to live a peaceful life by means of security? Just as people look at the word differently when you say democracy i understand most people are using it to refer to america. However what then where the Greeks? so in order to have a rational debate upon political ideas we need to have standers


(also a big pet peeve of mine i know to many people who actually don't know the difference between a republic and a democracy.) AND I HATE STUPID!!!

But when people criticize or support the USG and refer to it as a "democracy," does correcting them by saying, "no, it's a republic," really address their position?

The "it's a republic" response seems like a red herring.

When is that correction useful and relevant? Maybe for Civics 101 class?

[tzor]

But when people criticize or support the USG and refer to it as a "democracy," does correcting them by saying, "no, it's a republic," really address their position?

It depends. What is the particular criticism? Generally speaking, the primary source of invoking the "democracy" argument is when a bare majority isn't happy that they are not getting their way. These same people often are very close to proving the problem of a true "democracy" which is the tyranny of the majority.

We make this mistake again and again. Consider how much the United States pushed "democracy" in the Gaza Strip. What did it result in? The election of terrorists.

When the American Colonies declared themselves to be Independent (but United) States, they didn't even mention "democracy" (because otherwise by a pure democratic vote we would have probably still remained with England) but rather the principle of "unalienable rights." Such rights belong as much to the minority as the majority, a fundamental difference compared to a true democracy where a majority vote decides everything.

[BigBallinStalin]

But when people criticize or support the USG and refer to it as a "democracy," does correcting them by saying, "no, it's a republic," really address their position?

It depends. What is the particular criticism? Generally speaking, the primary source of invoking the "democracy" argument is when a bare majority isn't happy that they are not getting their way. These same people often are very close to proving the problem of a true "democracy" which is the tyranny of the majority.

We make this mistake again and again. Consider how much the United States pushed "democracy" in the Gaza Strip. What did it result in? The election of terrorists.

When the American Colonies declared themselves to be Independent (but United) States, they didn't even mention "democracy" (because otherwise by a pure democratic vote we would have probably still remained with England) but rather the principle of "unalienable rights." Such rights belong as much to the minority as the majority, a fundamental difference compared to a true democracy where a majority vote decides everything.

Sure, for those who think "democracy" only means "majority rule and kinda free elections," then the clarification is useful. For everything else--except a Civics 101 test--the clarification is usually a red herring.

[saxitoxin]

A state can exist as both a democracy and a republic, like one can have both blonde hair and blue eyes; you don't say "you have blonde hair!" - "no I don't, I have blue eyes!" Democracy refers to the means of power, republic refers to the means of authority. The two relate to different things.

- U.S. is a federal democratic republic. So is Mexico and Brazil.
- France is a unitary democratic republic. So is South Korea and Finland.

Republic just means a government other than a monarchy; where the legitimization of the state's existence through the idea of sovereignty originates in the corpus political instead of the corpus royal. In other words, every organized government that isn't a monarchy is a republic. That's it.

[WILLIAMS5232]

but that obama guy is a dictator right? how can a dictator function in a republic?

or are we actually in the "Matrix"?

[tzor]

A state can exist as both a democracy and a republic, like one can have both blonde hair and blue eyes; you don't say "you have blonde hair!" - "no I don't, I have blue eyes!" Democracy refers to the means of power, republic refers to the means of authority. The two relate to different things.

- U.S. is a federal democratic republic. So is Mexico and Brazil.
- France is a unitary democratic republic. So is South Korea and Finland.

Republic just means a government other than a monarchy; where the legitimization of the state's existence through the idea of sovereignty originates in the corpus political instead of the corpus royal. In other words, every organized government that isn't a monarchy is a republic. That's it.

This is really ... er the opposite of deep ... superficial? I'll reserve the fact that "democracy" and "democratic" mean two different things and that you are going about describing "democratic" (and using it) while claiming that this is "democracy."

So let's start at the end and work our way to the beginning, because I like to argue this way.

A monarchy is a form of government in which sovereignty is actually or nominally embodied in a single individual (the monarch).

Now while we normally think of the King and the King's son, etc, there is nothing in this definition that prohibits the election of the monarch by popular vote. When monarchs are elected they are called ... wait for it ... elective monarchies. Thus a "democratic monarchy" is actually possible.

A republic is a form of government in which power resides in the people, and the government is ruled by elected leaders run according to law (from Latin: res publica), rather than inherited or appointed (such as through inheritance or divine mandate).

Montesquieu included both democracies, where all the people have a share in rule, and aristocracies or oligarchies, where only some of the people rule, as republican forms of government.

Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens are meant to participate equally – either directly or, through elected representatives, indirectly – in the proposal, development and establishment of the laws by which their society is run. The term originates from the Greek δημοκρατία (dēmokratía) "rule of the people",

Democracy contrasts with forms of government where power is either held by an individual, as in an absolute monarchy, or where power is held by a small number of individuals, as in an oligarchy. Nevertheless, these oppositions, inherited from Greek philosophy, are now ambiguous because contemporary governments have mixed democratic, oligarchic, and monarchic elements. Karl Popper defined democracy in contrast to dictatorship or tyranny, thus focusing on opportunities for the people to control their leaders and to oust them without the need for a revolution.

Several variants of democracy exist, but there are two basic forms, both of which concern how the whole body of all eligible citizens executes its will. One form of democracy is direct democracy, in which all eligible citizens have direct and active participation in the political decision making. In most modern democracies, the whole body of all eligible citizens remain the sovereign power but political power is exercised indirectly through elected representatives; this is called representative democracy or democratic republic.

So in the extreme basic system, we have a two fold division only if:

1. Any single dictator or despot is considered a monarchy.
2. Any system where power is shared by more than one person is a republic even if sovereignty does not reside "with the people" as was the original definition.

Neither of these definitions fits the popular definition of the terms. One would not count a military coup with a single person in charge a "monarchy."

[saxitoxin]

crap - I made a great point and then I tried to respond to my own post and I deleted it ...

Anyway, it started like this:

I don't know what you're talking about tzor.

The legitimacy of a state under a monarch originates because the monarch ordains it, in a republic because the mass of the political class ordain it. The corpus political can be anything; states or provinces (like the U.S. and Brazil), adult citizens (like France), white adults (apartheid South Africa), the clergy (Iran), merchant families (ducal Venice), the Communist Party (PRC), etc. A "republic" means nothing more than something that isn't a monarchy; these are definitions of authority.

And then a bunch of other stuff. Mets saw it.

[saxitoxin]

Also, Wikipedia is usually a decent source, but I'd be careful in attempting to engage in learning on poli sci terms from it as it tends to attract people pushing fringe theories. For instance, the article "constitutional republic" has had to be purged no less than three times from WP (here's the first time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... l_republic) and is currently "salted" (entry is banned from being recreated) as people keep rushing to re-insert it anytime a talk radio host with a degree in broadcasting from a state college starts going on about "America isn't a democracy, it's a constitutional republic!" (which is a theory that's been pushed by Robert Welch and his supporters since the 1950s but is unknown in academia).

Of course, there are different types of democracy, direct democracy (ancient Athens, the New England town meeting system, etc.), representative democracy (the U.S., France, Brazil), etc. But that has nothing to do with republicanism, nor does federalism, nor does the protection of individual rights within a democratic state (which is correctly called constitutional liberalism [I suspect that, when Rob Welch came up with his ideas, he was probably in some sense correct but chose to invent the term "constitutional republic" as a marketing tactic to replace "constitutional liberalism" since "liberal' has a different meaning in the pop zeitgeist in the U.S. than elsewhere and he suspected his followers would get confused).

(One funny aside, a couple years ago Utah ordered all its high school textbooks to insert "the U.S. is a (compound) constitutional republic" based on a bill introduced by Michael Morley, a two-time state legislator whose background in law includes a B.A. in construction management from BYU. On their blog at the time, the U of Utah poli sci department observed "The legislature pretty much made this one up." Basically, this idea is trumpeted by people who are fascinated by U.S. history and constitutional law, but not quite fascinated enough to actually read it.)

[Metsfanmax]

saxi is right. This is really simple. Now let's move on to something more meaningful.

[saxitoxin]

The legitimacy of a state under a monarch originates because the monarch ordains it, in a republic because the mass of the political class ordain it. The corpus political can be anything; states or provinces (like the U.S. and Brazil), adult citizens (like France), white adults (apartheid South Africa), the clergy (Iran), merchant families (ducal Venice), the Communist Party (PRC), etc. A "republic" means nothing more than something that isn't a monarchy; these are definitions of authority.

I hate to quote myself, but I made a really excellent point here, and you can see it in practice by comparing the preambles of constitutions in monarchies to republics ...

Liechtenstein
"We, John II, by the Grace of God, Prince Regnant of Liechtenstein, Duke of Troppau, Count of Rietberg, etc. etc. etc. make known ..."

Australia
"Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal ..."

Argentina
"We, the representatives of the people of the Argentine Nation, gathered in General Constituent Assembly by the will and election of the Provinces which compose it ..."

Switzerland
In the name of Almighty God! The Swiss People and the Cantons ...

France
"The French people solemnly proclaim ..."

United States
"We the People of the United States ..."

[Metsfanmax]

Switzerland
In the name of Almighty God!

Wow.

[targetman377]

this is from the Merriam Webster dictionary You see where things get confusing? yeah me too... You see Democracy at its core is the basic belief that all individuals vote for everything and simple majority wins. at its core a republic is ruled by an elect group who are Elected to REPRESENT there district. where the power or rights are vested in does not matter in any case cause both a democracy and republic find that the power is vested in the people. The difference comes though the power is vested in the people for both in a republic they give up there right to self govern for the right to be represented by means of an representative. the diffrance of what you use when referring to america is your context of how you want to paint a picture. Democracy= good or is preserved in a much nicer tone then Republic=which to the general public is sense as a little worse. cause no one wants to think they are not in charge when the constitutions says "we the people of the united states" Now as for many people who think the founding fathers wanted democracy. They did not and all where vehemently opposed to this idea. Read the federalist papers or a good book to read is Ratification by pauline maier, also another good book to see how we are not a democracy is the origins of the american constitution a documentary history edited by Michael kammen which he states

"Some of the most fundamental values held by american patriots in 1776 retained their dominance in 1787:above all that republicanism in the form of representative government (with no inherited positions of authority permitted) was the only conceivable system of politics for the independent united states"

he goes further

In 1776 John Adams believed that Americans could and should erect their new governments on a foundation of civic virtue. by 1787 his views had become more cynical. he looked to an effective separation of powers, a viable system of checks and balances, and legislative control of human "passions" as sounder bases for the new national government."

you can see from both these cases especially the founding fathers where created a new nation based on compromise of both worlds. one that can check majority rule and yet is not so controlling to shield people from entering upon the system. This is why it irritates me so much cause of the lack of people who just say we are a democracy and take the esay way out. in order to make it sound better however this is not the case.


this is from the Merriam Webster dictionary You see where things get confusing? no really remember the basics. of each word break them down look at what your government is. Most governments are hybrid of these two concepts. but lets face it we are not a democracy if you add other words fine a republic with democratic initiatives is one i like the best. but we are far from a democracy.

democracy noun (Concise Encyclopedia)

Form of government in which supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodic free elections. In a direct democracy, the public participates in government directly (as in some ancient Greek city-states, some New England town meetings, and some cantons in modern Switzerland). Most democracies today are representative. The concept of representative democracy arose largely from ideas and institutions that developed during the European Middle Ages and the Enlightenment and in the American and French Revolutions. Democracy has come to imply universal suffrage, competition for office, freedom of speech and the press, and the rule of law. See also republic.

republic noun (Concise Encyclopedia)
Form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives elected by its populace. The term was originally applied to a form of government in which the leader is periodically appointed under a constitution; it was contrasted with governments in which leadership is hereditary. A republic may also be distinguished from direct democracy, though modern representative democracies are by and large republics.