Putting the "we are not a democracy" myth to rest

In ancient Athens, whenever there was an important decision, citizens would assemble and vote. This was the ancient concept of "Democracy". It's what Madison had in mind when he wrote:

“In a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region.”
(Federalist #14)​

Clearly this type of democracy was impractical in a nation with multiple states. So they didn't want that. And they wrote about it again and again.

But THAT is what they wrote about. A concept that no longer exists.

What exists today is a modern version of democracy. A version that was created by our forefathers, along with other events like the French Revolution.

The concept of democracy today is very broad. It means that decisions are taken by the people and not by one person or a limited group of people who do not represent citizens. In other words, it is the opposite of a dictatorship.

The term Republic should not confuse anybody. It means today the same as it meant in the 18th Century: it means that it's not a monarchy. That's it! Nothing complicated or fancy about it.

So we have democratic republics (U.S., France, Mexico,...), and republics that are not democratic (Cuba, North Korea, China...). We also have Monarchies that are democratic (GB, Canada, Neatherlands,...)

To summarize,

Democracy means that it's not a dictatorship.
Republic means that it's not a Monarchy.

Despite the many variations and combinations of these, that is all they mean. Nothing complicated.

There are pundits trying to confuse people. Especially on talk radio. Claiming nonsense like "we are not a democracy, we are a Republic". The only motive I can think of for spreading this myth is that they want to overthrow our democracy. However, I think the myth is not as prevalent today as it was before Trump. I'm not sure why. Maybe because, even though Trump didn't lose many voters by attempting to overthrow our democracy, even his followers got a glimpse of what a dictatorship might look like. And they didn't like it.

 

Claiming that people who understand that we are a democratic republic and happen to mention it want to “overthrow” our gov is utterly childish.

you’re welcome.

 

So why did the founding fathers choose a Republic over a Democracy?

 

• In a pure democracy, laws are made directly by the voting majority leaving the rights of the minority largely unprotected.
• In a republic, laws are made by representatives chosen by the people and must comply with a constitution that specifically protects the rights of the minority from the will of the majority.
• The US has a "representative democracy."

 

I think you answered this in your next post.

That is exactly right!

 

I think it’s likely because the states were independent of one another and they wanted unification.

Also they had to figure out who they wanted to be able to have power — remember that only land owning whites were allowed to vote.

There was also a huge communication issue that no longer exists today

 

Democracy is really just a category of things, and anything that is ever put into practice would need a qualifier.

Direct Democracy is a form of democracy.

Republic is a form of democracy.

People who say "we aren't a democracy" usually don't have any idea what they are talking about and are just repeating something they heard someone else say.

 

You don’t know why? Seriously?

I’m going to assume you’re telling the truth when you say that and I’ll explain why.

The reason “we are a republic and not a democracy” is thrown around nowadays is because the left is attempting to get rid of the electoral which is what differentiates our system as a republic and not a democracy. Stop trying to screw up the system they created and we won’t have to point that inconvenient fact out to you.

 

The electoral college isn't what makes the US a Republic.

 

Yea it most certainly is part of the reason.

We are a republic because technically the STATES make the decision on who becomes president through a representative. Not the people.

 

We are a Republic because we elect representatives.

We would still be a Republic without the electoral college.

The Roman Republic did not have an electoral college.

We are also a democracy.

A Republic is a democracy. Just like a bird is an animal.

 

So the left is paying MAGA right-wingers to throw that around because they want to... ugh... this statement gets crazier as you read it. I'll assume you wrote this and didn't bother to re-read what you were posting. However, this is no more (but no less) insane than anything else right wingers have said.

 

And why do we do that and why did our founders choose that method? Because EXACTLY LIKE TODAY, they didn’t want the people in the smaller states getting screwed.

 

Thanks anyway, but I'm sticking with "republic, not democracy". Nice Try.

 

No. We are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. Which means we have a republic based upon the principles of the constitution. And the constitution dictates an electoral college.

 

If we amended the Constitution to no longer require an electoral college, we would remain a Constitutional Republic.

Also, a Constitutional Republic is still a democracy.

 

All this is true. Though being a "Republic" doesn't necessarily mean it's a democracy. North Korea, China, ... and others are "Republics". But they are not democracies. They just hand-pick who has a right to select the head of state. They even have a constitution.

In general terms, Republic simply means "not a monarchy".

 

So, why is it better if a minority can vote itself into power to leave the rights of the majority largely unprotected? A prime example is abortion. Every poll indicates that a substantial majority wants abortion rights protected by federal law. Yet, a minority foisted the repeal of RvW on everyone else. You only care about the protection of the minority rights because you ARE in the political minority. For other actual minorities, like LGBQT, foreigners, colored people, Trump supporters actually could care less.

 

Just putting Republic in their name doesn't really make them a Republic though.

A Republic requires that the power be held by the people AND their elected representatives. I think the "republics" you referred to are just taking that name to give legitimacy to their authoritarian system of government.

 

Lol it depends on how it’s amended. If there’s no electors and it’s just one vote one person we are no longer a constitutional republic.

And a constitutional republic is only a democracy if the constitution specifies such.

 

Sure. You can stick with whatever you want in our democracy.

Now... excuse me while I wait to hear comments from SERIOUS posters.

 

Lol says the guy who has no problem forcing his views on the minority

 

But they ARE a Republic. Today the term "Republic" (and also in the 18th century, but with a different rationale) simply means it's not a monarchy. To describe the transfer of power according to the will of the people we use the term "democracy".

Actually, the power is held by the CITIZENS, and their elected representatives. Who you consider a "citizen" is determined by the constitution. Most states didn't consider people "citizens" unless they owned land and paid taxes. The countries I mentioned consider only members of the Party to be citizens. And those citizens elect their party representatives, who elect higher party officials, who elect representatives to the Party Assembly... and so on up until the highest council which elects the head of state. Of course, as in N. Korea, not electing the appropriate head of state might land you in prison. For that reason they are not a democracy. But, strictly speaking, they ARE a Republic.

 

In this context, what is being discussed is stopping the tyranny of the majority. It is mainly the Senate rules that prevent this, but to a lesser extent it applies to the electoral college. The 60 vote rule means that the majority in most cases needs to garner the votes of at least a few of the minority in order to reach that threshold. If that threshold is not met, then legislation does not pass. This provides stability and encourages compromise. It would be an awful business environment and unsteadying for the stock market if every few years legislation was just rammed through by whomever was in the majority at that moment, only to reverse itself when the opposing side gets back into the majority.

This would be HORRIBLE for our country. Do you agree? Preventing the tyranny of the majority is an essential aspect of this nation

As far as your point about abortion, that is a judicial decision which is not related to the minority or the majority. It is supposed to be based on the Constitution.

 

Why are you dudes so damn hung up on this?