• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What form of Government was the US founded as?

What is our form of Government?


  • Total voters
    31
No, Democracy is not where "the majority rules". Majority rule is a principle of democracy, but isn't necessary in all cases in a democracy. There are direct democracies in existence today where strict 'majority rule' certainly does not decide ALL matters. They can also limit the powers of the government, though politically it would be difficult to maintain this.

True Republics are democracies, in most cases.

If you want to have conversations about limited government, why not just start out with that conversation? Why do people make fools of themselves trying and failing to sound intelligent by having a ridiculous semantic debate?


i tell every to read more than just the constitution, read the federalist papers, the founders created republican government, not democratic government.

federalist paper #39 "plan of conformity to republican principles"....not democratic principles.

america is to practice republicanism...not democracy.
 
i tell every to read more than just the constitution, read the federalist papers, the founders created republican government, not democratic government.

federalist paper #39 "plan of conformity to republican principles"....not democratic principles.

america is to practice republicanism...not democracy.

To continue the ridiculous semantic debate:

If they had written today, with today's definitions of the words, they would certainly have agreed that republics are forms of democracies, and would have readily stated such. They would instead have used more precise terms as we use them today to speak of the limited powers and government we would have had under their version of a republic.

The Republic is still a republic today, though it is certainly different in character than it was.

Cheese and RICE for god's sake... The Democratic-Republican party was started by Jefferson. This later became the Democratic Party. But the point is that certainly they understood that Democracy and Republicanism weren't mutually exclusive.

And, oh for heaven's sake, I HAVE read more than The Constitution. Unbelievable, you are.
 
To continue the ridiculous semantic debate:

If they had written today, with today's definitions of the words, they would certainly have agreed that republics are forms of democracies, and would have readily stated such. They would instead have used more precise terms as we use them today to speak of the limited powers and government we would have had under their version of a republic.

The Republic is still a republic today, though it is certainly different in character than it was.

Cheese and RICE for god's sake... The Democratic-Republican party was started by Jefferson. This later became the Democratic Party. But the point is that certainly they understood that Democracy and Republicanism weren't mutually exclusive.

And, oh for heaven's sake, I HAVE read more than The Constitution. Unbelievable, you are.

really? then tell me why the founders speak of republicanism, and not of democracy in the federalist papers.

why is the definition of republicanism.... different than democracy

why is the word democracy of OUR GOVERNMENT no where in the founding documents, and no where in the federalist papers.......................but by the way...GOD IS MENTIONED IN EVERY STATE CONSTITUTION.

i find your not interested in truth.
 
Representative Republic.
Our democtratic element is the election of our representatives, who then, well, represent us in our legislatures.
This, kids, is why there's no right to vote for President.
 
Representative Republic.
Our democtratic element is the election of our representatives, who then, well, represent us in our legislatures.
This, kids, is why there's no right to vote for President.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLCBAFCFD0B13E4C03&feature=player_detailpage&v=ewJyuXSW5nA

we have republican government ,not democratic government...in republican government you have representation also, and you vote.

democracy does not have an electoral college.
 
your correct, on the voting part ..........Madison says in the federalist papers only people who have property and pay taxes can vote......it does not mention race or gender.

That's a meaningless distinction if only white men are allowed to own property.
 
The US was founded as a Limited Republic. That is, a Republic where a limited selection of the population was allowed to be involved in the political process. Where the US has gone most wrong is by overly expanding the selection of the population that is allowed to be involved in politics.

That, or we haven't tried hard enough to make people capable of governing themselves responsibly.
 
really? then tell me why the founders speak of republicanism, and not of democracy in the federalist papers.
I just did, in the post you quoted. I am not going to draw a picture for you.

why is the definition of republicanism.... different than democracy
Because under most modern definitions and usage one is more specific than the other. I never said they were interchangeable. If you wanted to understand how the two words relate, you could. You don't want to. You find it threatening. I have no idea why, though. I suspect it may be some bizarre fixation.

why is the word democracy of OUR GOVERNMENT no where in the founding documents, and no where in the federalist papers.......................but by the way...GOD IS MENTIONED IN EVERY STATE CONSTITUTION.
The answer to this is the same answer as to your first question in this post.

i find your not interested in truth.
Your intellect is too unpolished to even begin to apprehend the truth. You have zero nuance, and haven't yet practiced creative synthesis and complex thinking for yourself. And the amazing thing is... you appear to think you are more informed than other people.
 
Full citizens who have no vote as to their representation in a government can not be legitimately asked to obey the laws of that government. Disenfranchised people have no say in the social contract, so why should they obeys its edicts?

For the PRIVILEGE of being allowed to stay and benefit from the society that the others have produced.

That, or we haven't tried hard enough to make people capable of governing themselves responsibly.

True in some regards. However it's also about who SHOULD be governing themselves as much as who CAN do it.
 
For the PRIVILEGE of being allowed to stay and benefit from the society that the others have produced.
Well I would suggest holding your breathe, and keeping it held until those people actually start feeling the privilege more deeply.
 
Reply to Ernst Barkman
your correct, on the voting part ..........Madison says in the federalist papers only people who have property and pay taxes can vote......it does not mention race or gender.

according too Madison, if people with no stake in our government ever get a vote, they will vote for those who promise them the most from the public trough, and take everything from those who have a stake, ....and bankruptcy follows.


the last 3 words are mine."

Exactly and since Citizens United says corporations are people the quote applies specifically to the Military/Industrial/Corporate oligarchy, "if people with no stake in our government ever get a vote, they will vote for those who promise them the most from the public trough, and take everything from those who have a stake." That is what I see as the result of the ruling because the Corporate people don't live and breathe, ergo don't need to be concerned about the environment, just financial considerations. Their money buys the "best politcians money can buy." The end result will be bankruptcy and that is a lovely legal maneuver to protect Corporations against liability. Yes indeedy, I don't think the Founding Fathers intended this.

the founders intended that the government be limited, to 18 duties only, and since they have but 18, and no more power outside of those, government in not able to grant favors or bailouts or makes laws with benefit the rich and powerful or large corporations. government is decentralized, and lobbyist and those that seek things from government are out of luck, this is what keeps the elites, FROM ruling.
 
I just did, in the post you quoted. I am not going to draw a picture for you.

Because under most modern definitions and usage one is more specific than the other. I never said they were interchangeable. If you wanted to understand how the two words relate, you could. You don't want to. You find it threatening. I have no idea why, though. I suspect it may be some bizarre fixation.

The answer to this is the same answer as to your first question in this post.

Your intellect is too unpolished to even begin to apprehend the truth. You have zero nuance, and haven't yet practiced creative synthesis and complex thinking for yourself. And the amazing thing is... you appear to think you are more informed than other people.

i can only direct you to federalist paper #39 and #43...it you cant glean information from that i am sorry for you.
 
i can only direct you to federalist paper #39 and #43...it you cant glean information from that i am sorry for you.

I have read them. What I have said above still stands. You needn't feel sorry for me. Keep trying, though.
 
I have read them. What I have said above still stands. You needn't feel sorry for me. Keep trying, though.

i know nothing of the founders will move you, because they are for limited government , no redistribution of wealth, absolute property rights, those kind of things you will never be for.
 
the founders intended that the government be limited, to 18 duties only, and since they have but 18, and no more power outside of those, government in not able to grant favors or bailouts or makes laws with benefit the rich and powerful or large corporations. government is decentralized, and lobbyist and those that seek things from government are out of luck, this is what keeps the elites, FROM ruling.

I don't remember Grandma or any of the urchins crying out to attack Vietnam, Iraq, or Libya and since we live in a capitalist country, I conclude the capitalists wanted the war because war makes good profits. Runs on energy. Since teh banksters were bailed out instead of arrested, I conclude the capitalists wanted/needed the bailout because once again, Grandma was saying "hang those suckers." Who rules. Big money rules. The Elites.
 
The question in the subject and the question in the poll are two completely different questions. One asks what we were founded as and the other asks what we are. Very misleading. We were formed to be a limited government republic. We are now some hybrid of socialism/welfare state/plutocracy. We have a small group of people who make all the decisions for us including who we are allowed to vote for so that we keep them and their kind in office and consolidating power to them while making us think we are free.
 
It was founded as an oligarchy, because only about 5-15% of the people living within the United States were eligible to vote at the time the Constitution was ratified. Since then, it has evolved into a representative republic.

You got a point there.
 
Actually, more words are needed. It is a democratically selected representative republic.

Lords could have a "representative republic" and in some regions of the world that was so.
 
Actually, more words are needed. It is a democratically selected representative republic.

Lords could have a "representative republic" and in some regions of the world that was so.

Indeed, it all depends on how the terms are defined, and thus this is a semantic debate. Many would not consider a non-democratic republic a republic at all. Many of those would consider what you have described as an Oligarchic Republic. Who has the right definition(s)? It can be debated endlessly, and what kind of enrichment is accomplished in the end? Very little I say. I can't believe these people want to keep it a semantic debate rather than debating the concepts behind whatever definitions. It is ridiculous through and through.

(the following is not directed at you, joko): Defining or Redefining does not help the soundness of your argument one iota. Definitions can only, and should only be used for, clarifying your argument. Trying to get people to use whatever one believes is the 18th century nomenclature merely confounds the issue. I think some people think they are winning if they get to be the ones to define things.
 
would someone please provide me with the words representative democracy, in which the (founders use that term) and state that is what we are.

because from my reading of the constitution and the federalist papers, i have yet too find it.

can someone steer me to this info,it would be helpful too me, and i would appreciate it.
 
federation of republics.
 
Back
Top Bottom