• 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!

Are we a republic or a democracy?

Technocrat said:
No, we are not any kind of democracy at the federal level, & were not intended to be. There is only one area of the federal government that is even linked to a 50%+1 popular vote democratic activity, the STATE elections of our federal officials. The president is still elected by the electoral congress, not the popular vote.

Despite the best efforts of many "progressives" over the last 100 years or so, we are still a representative republic, per our Constitution. Our Constitution still requires a super-majority in both houses of congress (or a super-majority of delegates to a Constitutional Convention) and ratification by a super-majority of state legislatures to be amended. As long as those safeguards are in place, we will not became a democracy

Changing what a lot of people call us does not change what we are, no matter how bad some people want it to be so.

BTW DA, not everyone thinks of "rule of law, free and fair elections, and civil liberties" when they hear democracy. Those of us who truly understand the meaning of the concept think of mob rule & instability.Our founders did nothing of the sort in relation to democracy.

Before the 20th century the federal government even taught military officers & enlisted men the difference between a democracy & a republic, along with the dangers of the former & advantages of the latter.
Click to expand...


I know what democracy really means. I stated this, and I don't like literal democracy. Almost everyone agrees that the voters shouldn't decide everything. However, democracy, like countless other terms, is generally used in a non-literal context, as a shorthand for "liberal democracy" or "democratic republic."

Technocrat said:
Your parallel with Marxism falls apart when you remember the Soviets intended, promised & advertised a "Marxist" state. (That they were not able to deliver on that anymore than most of their other promises is beside the point, and the subject of another thread.)
Click to expand...

That does nothing to change the fact that what went on in the Soviet Union was almost the opposite of much of Marx's theories. By the technical definition of Marxism, the USSR was not Marxist. There was government, disparity in wealth, and property (albeit whether government owned property constitutes private property just in the hands of one group is another matter) The country also billed itself as democratic, but we can both agree that it most certainly wasn't.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
I know what democracy really means. I stated this, and I don't like literal democracy. Almost everyone agrees that the voters shouldn't decide everything. However, democracy, like countless other terms, is generally used in a non-literal context, as a shorthand for "liberal democracy" or "democratic republic."
Click to expand...
No, the voters do not have to literally "decide everything" for a nation to be a democracy. That would be impractical at any level larger than a small village, as the Athenians learned.
And yes, many people do use the word "democracy" inappropriately. That is the primes that started this thread.
To be a democracy, a country has to have a way for the majority to stop the government short if it is unhappy, without waiting for scheduled elections. The parliamentary vote of no-confidence is the method chosen by most modern democracies. Without a such a safety valve the majority is not truly in charge at any given moment.
We have nothing even remotely similar. Our elections are held on the same schedule whether our majority is relatively content, or totally outraged.
This was one of the big disagreements at the Constitutional Convention when deciding on whether to have a republic or a democracy. The democrats lost the debate & the federalists won out & our Republic was born.
If you are unwilling to accept this, we are both wasting our time replying to each other.

If you want to sound "cool" & all that, go ahead, call our nation a democracy. It wont be true, but you might feel better about yourself.


That does nothing to change the fact that what went on in the Soviet Union was almost the opposite of much of Marx's theories. By the technical definition of Marxism, the USSR was not Marxist. There was government, disparity in wealth, and property (albeit whether government owned property constitutes private property just in the hands of one group is another matter) The country also billed itself as democratic, but we can both agree that it most certainly wasn't.
Click to expand...
Of course, they were not at Marx's true communism. Even they admitted that. Their system did not last, either.
I did not claim that the Soviet Union was a Democracy, the Soviets did.
I was just pointing out another example where calling your county something it is not does not make it so.
 
Technocrat said:
No, the voters do not have to literally "decide everything" for a nation to be a democracy. That would be impractical at any level larger than a small village, as the Athenians learned.
And yes, many people do use the word "democracy" inappropriately. That is the primes that started this thread.
To be a democracy, a country has to have a way for the majority to stop the government short if it is unhappy, without waiting for scheduled elections. The parliamentary vote of no-confidence is the method chosen by most modern democracies. Without a such a safety valve the majority is not truly in charge at any given moment.
We have nothing even remotely similar. Our elections are held on the same schedule whether our majority is relatively content, or totally outraged.
This was one of the big disagreements at the Constitutional Convention when deciding on whether to have a republic or a democracy. The democrats lost the debate & the federalists won out & our Republic was born.
If you are unwilling to accept this, we are both wasting our time replying to each other.

If you want to sound "cool" & all that, go ahead, call our nation a democracy. It wont be true, but you might feel better about yourself.
Click to expand...

I've never heard that definition for a democracy before.

What is Democracy?

Technocrat said:
Of course, they were not at Marx's true communism. Even they admitted that. Their system did not last, either.
I did not claim that the Soviet Union was a Democracy, the Soviets did.
I was just pointing out another example where calling your county something it is not does not make it so.
Click to expand...

I think that you're missing the point. I never said that the USSR was technically Communist. I just said that the word "communism" evokes an image of a soviet like system in most people's heads, so it can be used in that context. Words are not always used in a literal context. This is especially true with politics
 
We are a Republic
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
I've never heard that definition for a democracy before.

What is Democracy?
Click to expand...
Wow. Your professor has added almost all the features of out Constitutional Republic to his definition of a democracy, even the the ones that contradict majority rule.
Herr Gobbels would be proud.
The Big Lie in this country for the last 100 rears or so is that we are a democracy. The link you provided merely demonstrates the lengths that "Progressives" will go to to propagate that lie.
I think that you're missing the point. I never said that the USSR was technically Communist. I just said that the word "communism" evokes an image of a soviet like system in most people's heads, so it can be used in that context. Words are not always used in a literal context. This is especially true with politics
Click to expand...
No, you just made my point. Just because you apply a label to something does not make it so.
The USSR was not truly communist, even though they said they were.
We are not a democracy, even though you say we are.
Using a word to produce am image that is not correct is deception. When it is done deliberately, for any type of gain (be it political or financial), it is fraud.
You can pledge allegiance to the flag & the "democracy" for which it stands for all I care. It still wont be true.
It does not matter how much you argue, or how you try to redefine democracy, the big lie is still that, a lie.
 
VF500 said:
Since the time of Woodrow Wilson, socialists have liked to use the word democracy to describe this country, which it is not. Democracy can also be called Mob-ocracy or mob rule by the largest number of people assembled at the time a decision is made. Fifty percent plus one is all that's needed. There's also no protection for the rights of the minority. We are a Republic. We use elected individuals to represent us and make the decisions the big "WE" want, not mobs of individuals acting in theirown self interest.

In 1905 about 100 people got together in New York and organized what became known as the ISS or Intercollegiate Socialist Society. They were, obviously, a bunch of socialists. But in 1921, the violence in the USSR gave socialism a bad name so they changed their name to "The League of Democracy". Progressive socialists and communists have been changing their names since that time in an effort to stay hidden in the shadows from true "Republicans". Socialists ever since have been trying to blur the difference between a Republic and a Democracy to give themselves a more "touchy feely" sound and not like the bunch of Stalinists that they really are.
Click to expand...

There are two types of democracies, a direct democracy in which the people vote on the issues and a representative democracy in which people vote others to the legislature to vote on laws and whatnot for them (aka a republic), the US is the latter.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
There are two types of democracies, a direct democracy in which the people vote on the issues and a representative democracy in which people vote others to the legislature to vote on laws and whatnot for them (aka a republic), the US is the latter.
Click to expand...
That is a little contradictory. A representative democracy is a republic?

I am glad to know that you understand this better than James Madison.

In the Federalist Papers he contrasts our Republic (as outlined in the constitution) to the "Italian Democracies" of his day (remember, Italy was not united then). Those city states were not "direct democracies" in the Athenian model. They were representative democracies similar to the current European model. The inefficiencies of so called direct democracy had show itself to be useless above the village level long before those city states were formed.

Was the father of the Constitution too stupid to know what he was talking about?
I think not.

Sadly, most of the "progressives" who keep propagating the Big Lie that we are a democracy are not stupid either, just dishonest. They have convinced their followers that contradictions like you just stated are not contradictions at all. As Orwell would put it, doublethink.

As I stated before, saying we are a democracy will not make it true, no matter how many times you say it or how loudly. It does not matter how many people you convince, either.
In the end, we are still a nation of laws & the Constitution still trumps the majority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom