• 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!

Democracy V Republic

ChrisABrown said:
It is true that our democracy is failed, and it is not understood exactly why by nearly all.

Its failure is found in the fact that one of the ultimate PURPOSES of free speech is to assure the Citizens of a democracy are fully informed, and are able to unify around reasonably determined perceptions of the actual and specific situation their democracy is faced with.

Democracies run on opinion, opinion comes from information, information comes from media . . . Oops, they are corporations not people and care more about short term profits than unalienable rights or rights retained.
Click to expand...



The main failing of US democracy is lack of participation.


Republican voters are the privileged in the USA, so the GOP has a vested interest in the Status Quo and their supporters will continue to vote. The paradox is that the least prosperous and those with the most to gain from social change and the ones that are least likely to vote.


Compulsory voting is one solution though an unpalatable one.
 
To me it is almost a matter of semantics. Political words have a way of changing over time, and words can be misused.

I think I see what the OP is saying, however. The United States of America isn't a "direct democracy". Very few countries on Earth are. It's far too big to be one, anyway.

The present federal constitution became effective on 4 March 1789. People in 1789 had a different idea of what was "equitable" or "just" in a republic. No states had universal suffrage in 1789; in fact, being white, male and 21 did not guarantee the right to vote.

In my view, the USA is a representative democracy, but not a direct one. We don't log onto the internet every evening to make policy decisions as a nation, we elect leaders to do so on our behalf. In that sense, America is not a democracy. It's better described as a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. Also in my view, democracy requires a stable state in order to function; to that end, some principles must be put in the constitution which are actually anti-democratic, ironically enough. In the US, the president is responsible to the people, but then we take the popular sovereignty and put it through a "filter" in order to elect him (the electoral college in this case). The United States Congress, the upper house--which is just as powerful as the lower house--gives equal seats to each state regardless of their respective populations. Democratic? No, but if we had only the House of Representatives, the seats in which are apportioned by population, and no Senate it would be more directly democratic. But would we actually want that? Probably not, because the United States is a federation of states, and their peoples, and it would deteriorate into the greatest danger to freedom in any democracy: the tyranny of the majority.

I overheard a political science professor I had in college talking to a student from Nigeria. He told her that the founding fathers of the US constitution were more concerned with individual liberty than with majority rule.

This is true. Presidential democracies tend to be more about compromise than their parliamentary counterparts. The latter are able to rely on the FORCE of popular power more than the former. Personally, while I"m not 100% satisfied with the US government (far from it) it fits our political culture far better than say, the German constitution or Canadian constitution would if we ever decided to trade constitutions.

To me "raw" democracy is a ridiculous idea. We're a democracy, but with a few features in the constitution that aren't democratic, which are necessary to maintain stability, without which, democracy dies. Kind of a catch-22, but there you are.

P.S. This is my first post. I'm 39, from Maryland, USA, and have always had an interest in politics, both of my own country and elsewhere. I hope my membership on this website will be mutually productive and beneficial. Cheers.
 
Rich2018 said:
The main failing of US democracy is lack of participation.
Click to expand...

Correct, but people do not participate because the information is so poor and controlled. One cannot, for the most part, make a correct decision voting. The candidates and issues are mostly contrived or misrepresented.
 
JimHackerMP said:
To me it is almost a matter of semantics. Political words have a way of changing over time, and words can be misused.

I think I see what the OP is saying, however. The United States of America isn't a "direct democracy". Very few countries on Earth are. It's far too big to be one, anyway.

The present federal constitution became effective on 4 March 1789. People in 1789 had a different idea of what was "equitable" or "just" in a republic. No states had universal suffrage in 1789; in fact, being white, male and 21 did not guarantee the right to vote.

In my view, the USA is a representative democracy, but not a direct one. We don't log onto the internet every evening to make policy decisions as a nation, we elect leaders to do so on our behalf. In that sense, America is not a democracy. It's better described as a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. Also in my view, democracy requires a stable state in order to function; to that end, some principles must be put in the constitution which are actually anti-democratic, ironically enough. In the US, the president is responsible to the people, but then we take the popular sovereignty and put it through a "filter" in order to elect him (the electoral college in this case). The United States Congress, the upper house--which is just as powerful as the lower house--gives equal seats to each state regardless of their respective populations. Democratic? No, but if we had only the House of Representatives, the seats in which are apportioned by population, and no Senate it would be more directly democratic. But would we actually want that? Probably not, because the United States is a federation of states, and their peoples, and it would deteriorate into the greatest danger to freedom in any democracy: the tyranny of the majority.

I overheard a political science professor I had in college talking to a student from Nigeria. He told her that the founding fathers of the US constitution were more concerned with individual liberty than with majority rule.

This is true. Presidential democracies tend to be more about compromise than their parliamentary counterparts. The latter are able to rely on the FORCE of popular power more than the former. Personally, while I"m not 100% satisfied with the US government (far from it) it fits our political culture far better than say, the German constitution or Canadian constitution would if we ever decided to trade constitutions.

To me "raw" democracy is a ridiculous idea. We're a democracy, but with a few features in the constitution that aren't democratic, which are necessary to maintain stability, without which, democracy dies. Kind of a catch-22, but there you are.

P.S. This is my first post. I'm 39, from Maryland, USA, and have always had an interest in politics, both of my own country and elsewhere. I hope my membership on this website will be mutually productive and beneficial. Cheers.
Click to expand...

Read the articles of confederation. Then read the constitution. Afterwards, ask yourself why they made the changes they made.

Let me know what happens.

Also check out the social contract. Hobbes.
 
Yes, I have read both. And I did take a course in political philosophy, we read a bit of Hobbes, even Locke's treatise on government, and the like. (And, unfortunately, some of Marx's writings.)

Why do you think they made the changes they made?
 
JimHackerMP said:
Yes, I have read both. And I did take a course in political philosophy, we read a bit of Hobbes, even Locke's treatise on government, and the like. (And, unfortunately, some of Marx's writings.)

Why do you think they made the changes they made?
Click to expand...

They did it because the model of America in the Articles didn't work. Accordingly they took the entire Article 2 that talked about state sovereignty and flushed it. Every word. They were unable to pay Revolutionary War debts. They were unable to fund anything consistently. They had 13 different tariff policies. Something had to change.

I read Leviathan. Great stuff with a couple of bongs back in the day.
 
Last edited:
JimHackerMP said:
To me it is almost a matter of semantics. Political words have a way of changing over time, and words can be misused....
Click to expand...

Well many of the founding fathers were lawyers and we know how lawyers make us all distrustful of language. All the same "democracy" means something important.


...I think I see what the OP is saying, however. The United States of America isn't a "direct democracy". Very few countries on Earth are. It's far too big to be one, anyway....
Click to expand...

I would go further and say NO countries on Earth are direct democracies...and indeed I doubt if any state/city government has ever functioned through direct democracy.


...the present federal constitution became effective on 4 March 1789. People in 1789 had a different idea of what was "equitable" or "just" in a republic. No states had universal suffrage in 1789; in fact, being white, male and 21 did not guarantee the right to vote....
Click to expand...

You make a good point, indeed if any country's government today functioned like the USA's did in the 18th century, we'd have no hesitation in denying that it was "constitutional".


...in my view, the USA is a representative democracy, but not a direct one....
Click to expand...

Er, that's been the point of this whole thread.

The USA is a democracy, specifically it is a REPRESENTATIVE democracy - like every other real democracy on Earth

There are NO DIRECT DEMOCRACIES on Earth, and probably never have been.

...we don't log onto the internet every evening to make policy decisions as a nation, we elect leaders to do so on our behalf. In that sense, America is not a democracy. It's better described as a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC...
Click to expand...

The USA is a democracy, specifically a representative democracy

The USA is also a Republic, when a republic operates under the democratic will of the people, it is correctly termed a "CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC"


...Democratic? No, but if we had only the House of Representatives, the seats in which are apportioned by population, and no Senate it would be more directly democratic. But would we actually want that? Probably not, because the United States is a federation of states, and their peoples, and it would deteriorate into the greatest danger to freedom in any democracy: the tyranny of the majority....
Click to expand...

Why do you say this ?

There is no "tyranny of the majority" in a constitutional government.

Several people have stated on here that democracy is mob rule or the tyranny of the majority - I ask them all to which countries are you referring to ?

The US Constitution is framed so it makes it difficult for the government to do anything unless they enjoy constant popularity and all parties agree. It makes it very difficult for a leader to pursue unpopular policies - this leads to political inertia. A problem never foreseen by the founders.
Again you may say if you remove checks and balances you have a recipe for tyranny - to which I would answer which democracies have tyranny ?


...I overheard a political science professor I had in college talking to a student from Nigeria. He told her that the founding fathers of the US constitution were more concerned with individual liberty than with majority rule....
Click to expand...

And I hope that student asked whether those individual liberties extended to women, blacks and Native Americans

Individual liberty is worth protecting, popular views are worth listening to but I think what you and those who talk about democratic tyranny forget is that members of the legislature are elected as REPRESENTATIVES not DELEGATES.
Your senators and congressmen exist to represent you in Congress, not to simply parrot the majority view.
Quite often politicians vote for things that their constituents would not support because they believe that in the long run it is in their interests or is simply just the right thing to do


...personally, while I"m not 100% satisfied with the US government (far from it) it fits our political culture far better than say, the German constitution or Canadian constitution would if we ever decided to trade constitutions....
Click to expand...

What does the US Constitution have that the German one doesn't
What are the Canadians lacking that you would miss so much ?

...I'm 39, from Maryland, USA, and have always had an interest in politics...
Click to expand...

For a short time, I went to high school in Silver Springs, MD
Did you know that Maryland is one of seven US states named after Kings or Queens ?
 
ChrisABrown said:
Correct, but people do not participate because the information is so poor and controlled. One cannot, for the most part, make a correct decision voting. The candidates and issues are mostly contrived or misrepresented.
Click to expand...

It's a bit like voting which beauty cream is the best or which beer is the best - the only way to know is to try them all.

In the UK there was/is a feeling that the people had an "inning" mentality - they'd vote for one party to form a government, then at the next election they'd vote for the other.


In practice people tend to vote a "straight ticket" - so if your're a Trump supporter (meaning you liked him best in TV debated etc) you vote Republican all the way down.


Would compulsory voting make the politicians extend their message to more people and in a easier to understand form ?
 
Actually I thought we were named after the Virgin Mary or something. It was the colony chartered to the Catholic Calvert family for the settlement of Catholics who wanted out of Britain. I doubt it was named after Queen Mary, because Mary II was long gone by then, and Mary III (as in William & Mary) was anti-Catholic. (Maybe James II's wife was Mary? hmmm) But I could be wrong.

I guess Virginia is named after Queen Elizabeth. I remember the scene from Elizabeth: the Golden Age:

Raleigh: I have claimed the fertile coast of the New World and named it Virginia, in honor of our Virgin Queen.
Queen: And when I marry, will you change the name to Conjugia?

What are the other states that are named after monarchs? Wait let me guess......Georgia (obvious)...Louisiana (French king).....uh, can't think of the others off the top of my head.

I remember a routine by Louis Black about how he was from Silver Spring, MD. He said I just tell people I'm from Washington, because when you tell them you're from Silver Spring Maryland, you sound like a *****. LOL. (Sorry, no offense...I just love Lewis Black.) Which school there?

As far as the German or Canadian constitutions, that i mentioned, they're meant for Germany and Canada, respectively. They fit their unique political cultures. There's no way you could impose the US Constitution on them, or either of theirs on the United States. I forget why I was mentioning them, except that a lot of parliamentary democracies don't seem to have grasped that majority rule is not the end-all, be-all to freedom. In those forms of democracy you can rely on "force" of popular will more than you can in a presidential democracy (at least in ours, at any rate).
 
Last edited:
JimHackerMP said:
Actually I thought we were named after the Virgin Mary or something....
Click to expand...

Maryland was the only one of the 13 British American colonies that was established as a Catholic colony

It was named after Queen Mary I (Bloody Mary)

...I guess Virginia is named after Queen Elizabeth. I remember the scene from Elizabeth: the Golden Age...
Click to expand...

Yes and also West Virginia (a bit of a cheat I know)


...Raleigh: I have claimed the fertile coast of the New World and named it Virginia, in honor of our Virgin Queen.
Queen: And when I marry, will you change the name to Conjugia?
Click to expand...

Do you say Rar-Lay or Rall-ey ?

...what are the other states that are named after monarchs? Wait let me guess......Georgia (obvious)...Louisiana (French king).....uh, can't think of the others off the top of my head....
Click to expand...

Yes, George II and Louis XIV

North and South Carolina - named after King Charles I and II


...I remember a routine by Louis Black about how he was from Silver Spring, MD. He said I just tell people I'm from Washington, because when you tell them you're from Silver Spring Maryland, you sound like a *****. LOL. (Sorry, no offense...I just love Lewis Black.) Which school there?
Click to expand...

As far as I recall, it was just called Silver Springs High School. I did a 3 week school exchange in May-June 1977.



As far as the German or Canadian constitutions, that i mentioned, they're meant for Germany and Canada, respectively. They fit their unique political cultures. There's no way you could impose the US Constitution on them, or either of theirs on the United States. I forget why I was mentioning them, except that a lot of parliamentary democracies don't seem to have grasped that majority rule is not the end-all, be-all to freedom. In those forms of democracy you can rely on "force" of popular will more than you can in a presidential democracy (at least in ours, at any rate).[/QUOTE]
 
I would have thought the Carolinas were named after Queen Caroline. Maybe Carol is Charles in Latin or something? I'll trust your facts, though, I'm just guessing.

Speaking of high schools there, isn't there a Winston Churchill HS in Montgomery Co. somewhere?

Sorry, I seem to have gotten off topic. My apologies. ;)
 
JimHackerMP said:
I would have thought the Carolinas were named after Queen Caroline. Maybe Carol is Charles in Latin or something? I'll trust your facts, though, I'm just guessing.

Speaking of high schools there, isn't there a Winston Churchill HS in Montgomery Co. somewhere?

Sorry, I seem to have gotten off topic. My apologies. ;)
Click to expand...

Could be the American Winston Churchill. The British one used Wiston S. Churchill for his written works to differentiate between them
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill_(novelist)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill
 
JimHackerMP said:
I would have thought the Carolinas were named after Queen Caroline. Maybe Carol is Charles in Latin or something? I'll trust your facts, though, I'm just guessing.

Speaking of high schools there, isn't there a Winston Churchill HS in Montgomery Co. somewhere?

Sorry, I seem to have gotten off topic. My apologies. ;)
Click to expand...


I correct myself, I could have sworn I was taught that Maryland was named after Mary I of England but after checking it was actually Henrietta Maria of France - wife of Charles I of England.
 
There is a lot more direct democracy at the state level than nationally. While states still have functioning legislatures, options for initiatives, referendums and recalls sit in most state constitutions as a direct democratic check. Since Congress has become all but paralyzed by increased partisanship and the rules in the Senate, more of its power to legislate change has shifted downward to the state level or to the executive branch through regulatory practices.
 
btthegreat said:
There is a lot more direct democracy at the state level than nationally. While states still have functioning legislatures, options for initiatives, referendums and recalls sit in most state constitutions as a direct democratic check. ...
Click to expand...

A referendum (or plebiscite) in the USA (and UK for that matter) does not carry the rule of law

They are simply opinion polls conducted to give governments (be it at county/city/state/national level) to give a mandate for government to pass a certain law or agree a certain treaty.


The practice of conducting a plebiscite is in no way an exercise in Direct Democracy.
 
Rich2018 said:
A referendum (or plebiscite) in the USA (and UK for that matter) does not carry the rule of law

They are simply opinion polls conducted to give governments (be it at county/city/state/national level) to give a mandate for government to pass a certain law or agree a certain treaty.


The practice of conducting a plebiscite is in no way an exercise in Direct Democracy.
Click to expand...
Nope. I suspect that this framework Oregon Secretary of State: Make or Change State Law is followed in many jurisdiction. The results of the election process constitute actual legislative acts and the language itself is sitting on the ballot. The results of the plebiscite are not dependent on any other governmental process beyond the certification of the result by the secretary of state and same constitutional challenges any other statute or state constitutional change might engender.

Its not just Oregon. here's a breakdown https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiatives_and_referendums_in_the_United_States
 
Last edited:
btthegreat is correct. In Maryland, constitutional amendments require approval of the voters. Also, there are laws which, if a petition requires them to, are submitted to the voters for review. They have the force of law. Maybe that's just in Georgia that your state government treats the will of the people as an informal opinion poll?

We allow referral of existing statutes to the voters for repeal (or to leave them be). The governor signed into law a legislative act allowing same-sex marriage. Conservative voters mounted a petition drive to overturn it. They were, thankfully, unsuccessful.

Also, I think California goes to the opposite extreme (too much popular power). The people can pass any measure they want at the ballot box whether it has legislative approval or not.

The problem with something like that is that to make a successful petition drive, you need ORGANIZATION behind it. And what entities are best-organized? Special interests, of course!
 
Last edited:
Quag said:
Could be the American Winston Churchill. The British one used Wiston S. Churchill for his written works to differentiate between them
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill_(novelist)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill
Click to expand...

BTW, Quag: I did some research. The Winston Churchill high school in Potomac, Md is named after the actual British prime minister Winston Spencer Churchill. Driving down Georgia Ave in that neck of the woods is actually a Queen Elizabeth Avenue, and a Prince Philip Drive, no less. (unrelated, but interesting nonetheless)
 
Rich2018 said:
Well a representative democracy is a type of democracy so calling the USA a democracy cannot be said to be wrong.


I just find it hard to believe that so many people vehemently deny that the USA is a democracy and that a democracy is a bad thing.
Click to expand...

That's intentional, makes autocracy, authoritarian fascist dictatorships and theocracies seem more appealing, or justified, or feasible.
This is how democracy ends in America, with a spray tan and neo-nazis and klan making America great again.
 
Rich2018 said:
For a short time, I went to high school in Silver Springs, MD
Did you know that Maryland is one of seven US states named after Kings or Queens ?
Click to expand...

Walter Johnson High School 1975 (Bethesda, MD) - Go Spartans...one of the few high schools named after a baseball player.

JeffHGrad.jpg
 
JimHackerMP said:
btthegreat is correct. In Maryland, constitutional amendments require approval of the voters. Also, there are laws which, if a petition requires them to, are submitted to the voters for review. They have the force of law. Maybe that's just in Georgia that your state government treats the will of the people as an informal opinion poll?

We allow referral of existing statutes to the voters for repeal (or to leave them be). The governor signed into law a legislative act allowing same-sex marriage. Conservative voters mounted a petition drive to overturn it. They were, thankfully, unsuccessful.

Also, I think California goes to the opposite extreme (too much popular power). The people can pass any measure they want at the ballot box whether it has legislative approval or not.

The problem with something like that is that to make a successful petition drive, you need ORGANIZATION behind it. And what entities are best-organized? Special interests, of course!
Click to expand...

California?
SOMETIMES it goes too far, or backfires, yes.
Other times, it does an enormous amount of good. We just legalized pot that way last cycle...the state house kept punting, so it got put to the people and the people have spoken.
 
btthegreat said:
Nope. I suspect that this framework Oregon Secretary of State: Make or Change State Law is followed in many jurisdiction. The results of the election process constitute actual legislative acts and the language itself is sitting on the ballot. The results of the plebiscite are not dependent on any other governmental process beyond the certification of the result by the secretary of state and same constitutional challenges any other statute or state constitutional change might engender.

Its not just Oregon. here's a breakdown https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiatives_and_referendums_in_the_United_States
Click to expand...

I did not know this.

In Gwinnett county we recently had a referendum to allow alcohol sales on a Sunday. The result for in favor but AFAIK, the county still had to ratify it (and was under no legal obligation to do so).

In Ireland they people just voted to repeal the 8th amendment to their constitution - again I understood that this didn't carry any rule of law but in practice the Irish parliament will abide by the decision and ratify the repeal.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland



So technically, the Irish parliament could refuse to ratify the repeal.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
California?
SOMETIMES it goes too far, or backfires, yes.
Other times, it does an enormous amount of good. We just legalized pot that way last cycle...the state house kept punting, so it got put to the people and the people have spoken.
Click to expand...

And California wants to have ILLEGAL immigrants to be able to vote..... Thats good?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom