Re: Democracy vs Republic... I've seen the topic again today. Facts below.

[WarGamer]

Democracy is like automobile.

"How do you get to work?"

By automobile.

Constitutional Federal Republic is like saying 2021 Toyota Camry.




Is the USA a "Democracy"?

Sure. Kinda. Not a "Pure Democracy" and not a "Constitutional Democracy" and not a "Parliamentarian Monarchy" ...

But the people pretty much call the shots in the USA, albeit limited by the Constitution.

For those who ask "Who sez??


The US gov't ITSELF calls itself a CFR.

Every major college in the nation uses that phrase also...

So... one sentence answer:



The USA is governed by a Democratic form of government, accurately called a Constitutional Federal Republic.

[Polybius]

1. Agree

Well said.

[sanatanadharma]

2. Well, that is a problem

The one political team does not respect the Federal, nor the purpose and concept.

A republic guarantees one a representative in government. It doesn't guarantee one can choose the representative.
A democracy guarantees one a say in the choice of a representative. It doesn't guarantee one will win.

Over time, in the USA, the principle of democratic voting has expanded by Constitutional amendment.
Over time, representation has been diluted by population growth not represented in the Senate, and by the fixed number of representatives.

[303squadron]

3. But when we "export" democracy

None of the countries who have followed our lead have gone with that Electoral College thing, proving they are probably more democratic than we are.

[The Unmitigated Gall]

4. They're just the sorest of losers.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

5. These questions are complicated by semantics and very different ideas about the nature of "democracy

when it comes to the history of political theory.

When "we"--myself included--in contemporary society use the word "democracy," we tend to think of it in almost universally positive terms, including the right to vote for our representatives and state executives in free and fair elections with (more or less) universal suffrage. The presidential election is more complicated with the electoral college, but we still consider the election of electors to be "democratic" by state. To our ears, "democracy" is good.

But our concept of "democracy" is quite different than that of enlightenment-era liberal political philosophers (or the classical Greeks).

Enlightenment-era thinkers thought of "democracy" in terms that are akin to "majoritarianism."

That is to say, in this alternate "democracy" represents a system where there are no divisions of political authority, no breaks on power, and no rights that limit a majority from impinging on the freedoms and property rights of the minority. Instead of being a system of a limited government, this concert of "democracy" was akin to mob rule. Nothing restrains a majority from acting against the legitimate interests of individuals in the minority. A "dictatorship" of the majority, if you will.

This is a totally different understandings of the same word.

The Constitution was constructed to divide authority and to enumerate rights to protect citizens from this latter understanding of "democracy."

Hence they devised a constitutional republic with democratically-elected representatives and political offices, with power distribute across executive, judicial, and legislative branches, and with the latter split into two houses with different rules (one with two year terms that allow one house to reflect popular passions, and another with 6 year terms to slow down popular passions).

I'm aware this is simplistic and leaves out a lack of political participation by the enslaved and women, etc.

The point is one needs to define one's terms to have successful communication, and understanding that "we" often use "democracy" in a way that is unlike the meaning of 18th Century (and earlier) political thinkers who concept of "democracy" was "majoritarianism," and that majoritarianism was a negative impulse that needed to be reigned in by political structures.

I hope this is clear.