evince (03-08-2018)
Is the United States of America a republic or a democracy?
By Eugene Volokh May 13, 2015
I often hear people argue that the United States is a republic, not a democracy. But that’s a false dichotomy. A common definition of “republic” is, to quote the American Heritage Dictionary, “A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them” — we are that.
A common definition of “democracy” is, “Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives” — we are that, too.
The United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority vote.
Some lawmaking is done this way, on the state and local levels, but it’s only a tiny fraction of all lawmaking. But we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy.
And indeed the American form of government has been called a “democracy” by leading American statesmen and legal commentators from the Framing on. It’s true that some Framing-era commentators made arguments that distinguished “democracy” and “republic”; see, for instance, The Federalist (No. 10), though even that first draws the distinction between “pure democracy” and a “republic,” only later just saying “democracy.”
But even in that era, “representative democracy” was understood as a form of democracy, alongside “pure democracy”: John Adams used the term “representative democracy” in 1794; so did Noah Webster in 1785; so did St. George Tucker in his 1803 edition of Blackstone; so did Thomas Jefferson in 1815. Tucker’s Blackstone likewise uses “democracy” to describe a representative democracy, even when the qualifier “representative” is omitted.
Likewise, James Wilson, one of the main drafters of the Constitution and one of the first Supreme Court Justices, defended the Constitution in 1787 by speaking of the three forms of government being the “monarchical, aristocratical, and democratical,” and said that in a democracy the sovereign power is “inherent in the people, and is either exercised by themselves or by their representatives.”
And Chief Justice John Marshall — who helped lead the fight in the 1788 Virginia Convention for ratifying the U.S. Constitution — likewise defended the Constitution in that convention by describing it as implementing “democracy” (as opposed to “despotism”), and without the need to even add the qualifier “representative.”
To be sure, in addition to being a representative democracy, the United States is also a constitutional democracy, in which courts restrain in some measure the democratic will. And the United States is therefore also a constitutional republic. Indeed, the United States might be labeled a constitutional federal representative democracy.
But where one word is used, with all the oversimplification that this necessary entails, “democracy” and “republic” both work. Indeed, since direct democracy — again, a government in which all or most laws are made by direct popular vote — would be impractical given the number and complexity of laws that pretty much any state or national government is expected to enact, it’s unsurprising that the qualifier “representative” would often be omitted.
Practically speaking, representative democracy is the only democracy that’s around at any state or national level.
continued
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.c5eccefbbdc6
evince (03-08-2018)
Not even open to debate. A democratic republic, a representative democracy, take your pick.
You know, I can understand why a certain political party that has routinely been losing the popular vote, but still being handed the presidency irrespective, would like to claim we are not a democracy. That presidents can be elected without the will of the people. And it all is a manifestation of GOP efforts to disenfranchise voters, Gerrymander legislative districts, and just making efforts to make voting as much of a hassle as possible. Conservatives have never believed in Democracy. That's why the American tories fought on the side of King George. Democracy appears to be an anathema to them.
I always assumed we were fighting to preserve western liberal democracy against Hitler and fascism. Pretty sure that was the conventional wisdom.
evince (03-08-2018), Jade Dragon (03-03-2018), Rune (03-19-2018)
“Democracy” has been generally understood to include representative democracy as well as direct democracy.
evince (03-08-2018)
evince (03-08-2018)
Now granted political parties aren't democracies and can do as they please but should Democrats be lecturing anyone on democracy after what the DNC did to Bernie in 2016?
And the electoral college was created by our founders for a very specific reason. Claiming we have the EC because of today's conservatives is rather disingenuous.
Peridot (03-04-2018)
Article IV of the Constitution guarantees each state the right to a republican form of government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articl...can_government
"It [the draft] is duty rather than slavery. I part with the author on the caviler idea that individual freedom (whatever that may be to the person) leads to nirvana, anyone older that 12 knows that is BS."
-(Midcan5)
"Allow me to masturbate my patriotism furiously and publicly at this opportunity."
-(Ib1yysguy)
"There is no 'equal opportunity' today unless the government makes it so."
-(apple0154 )
"abortion is not killing Its birth control"
-(Desh)
Truth Detector (03-08-2018)
"It [the draft] is duty rather than slavery. I part with the author on the caviler idea that individual freedom (whatever that may be to the person) leads to nirvana, anyone older that 12 knows that is BS."
-(Midcan5)
"Allow me to masturbate my patriotism furiously and publicly at this opportunity."
-(Ib1yysguy)
"There is no 'equal opportunity' today unless the government makes it so."
-(apple0154 )
"abortion is not killing Its birth control"
-(Desh)
Peridot (03-04-2018), Truth Detector (03-08-2018)
we were a republic until the 17th Amendment. Since then we've been a tyranny of the majority
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution
That you don't like the system that has been in place and elected EVERY President including George Washington is your problem, bitch. If you don't, start the process outlined in the Constitution created by the same men that established the electoral college system. Until then, STFU.
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
When conservatives claim we are not a democracy they are usually responding to claims the electoral college or other examples are not democratic. The electoral college is part of the republican aspect that takes territorial representation into consideration and was not designed to be democratic and did not even include popular votes.
Although Federalist 10 stated a republic is "the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest" that is not what the framers created in that only the House was elected directly by the voters. We evolved into more democratic aspects by direct election of Senators and by states choosing to allow the voters to choose electors.
The framers specifically sought to prevent majority control. They rejected direct democracy because "the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties; and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice, and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority." They sought to fragment government as many ways as possible to prevent any group from imposing its will on others.
That the president can be elected "without the will of the people" is not an issue in most representative democracies. European nations, Australia, Canada, India, Iceland, and Japan are all representative democracies using the parliamentary system in which the people do not even vote for president; instead, he is chosen by the legislative branch.
kudzu (03-04-2018)
Bookmarks