Difference between US and a true Democracy

This is mostly aimed at Perfection but others are welcome to join in this little discussion. So to begin, a simple question, Is the US a true Democracy?

You have to first define what a "true democracy" is.

Is it getting the town to vote on what you have for breakfast in the morning? It would certainly be the most democratic, but totally impractical.

The question should not be how much democracy we have, but how much autonomy we have. We have a tremendous amount. We can do and say and think as we please without for the most part being punished, provided you do not infringe on someone else's autonomy without their consent.

No, the United States is a Federal Republic. No if, ands, or buts about it.

Democracy is a propaganda word. The only issue people ever vote on are the school budgets. That's not a Democracy.

I think a "True Democracy" can be best described as when "the majority of the population elects, in a free, fair, unbiased election, to elect a party to government that they feel can best represent their wishes, generally"

In this, essentially the President IS the Government. Usually he receives the majority of votes from the majority of voters, the one (I think) exception was 2000. So, to answer the question, in all but extreme cases (like 2000), yes, the USA is a True Democracy.

To me, when I hear of Democracy, I always associated it with the Classical Greeks.

The United States (and I agree with Zarn and my History Teachers and Professors) that the US is a Federal Republic.

If you dont know what a federal republic is, Wiki has a good entry about it .

RealGoober said:

I think a "True Democracy" can be best described as when "the majority of the population elects, in a free, fair, unbiased election, to elect a party to government that they feel can best represent their wishes, generally"

In this, essentially the President IS the Government. Usually he receives the majority of votes from the majority of voters, the one (I think) exception was 2000. So, to answer the question, in all but extreme cases (like 2000), yes, the USA is a True Democracy.

Click to expand...

Nope, a distinction existed between a Democracy and Republic since the Classical Age. The US is clearly a Republic.

Representative Democracy is an oxymoron.

Only in more modern times has the term 'Democratic' been used to describe a Republic.

It's a Republic. No argument. And a two- bitparty one at that.

The USA is most definitely a Republic whereas Britain is a Democracy. Incidentally that is one of the things which amuses Europeans about US politics as the President is never made to publicly explain or argue the case for any actions or decisions to anyone! Over here in the UK Tony Blair has to argue the case on almost every decision and peice of legislation with Ministers of Parliament (who are all individually elected).

I could certainly define "democracy" such that the USA is a "true" one.

Panzerking said:

The USA is most definitely a Republic whereas Britain is a Democracy. Incidentally that is one of the things which amuses Europeans about US politics as the President is never made to publicly explain or argue the case for any actions or decisions to anyone! Over here in the UK Tony Blair has to argue the case on almost every decision and peice of legislation with Ministers of Parliament (who are all individually elected).

Click to expand...

Yeah but he goes and does it anyway, back bench rebellion or not.

Too true Mise!!

The US government could be described as a Democracy as it is a democratic form of government so in that sense it is a "true democracy" though by definition it is actually a Republic.

No, the US is not a 'true democracy'. However, a 'true democracy' is nothing more than tyranny by the majority. The US is a Federal Republic with three branches of government all acting as a check and balance. The check and balance doesn't always work, but it is generally very effective at ensuring the rights of the minority are advanced and after granted, then guaranteed. I far prefer it to a 'true democracy'. The word democracy is thrown around willy nilly, but the personal freedoms and minority protections guaranteed in most Western democracies is what most politicians mean when the talk about democracy now. Just like the meanings of 'liberal' and 'conservative' have been changed, so has the accepted meaning of democracy.

Gosh... Again this ignorant rant about "it's not a democracy, it's a republic !".

Democracy and republics are different and totally compatible.

Read this and use words correctly, please.

The US is a collection of smaller democratic states that combine to form a government that largely represents the majority of the population.

A quote from the Republic entry in wikipedia (my bolding).

In the United States republic came to mean a state that did not practice direct democracy but rather had the government only indirectly controlled by the people. In the rest of the world this is known as representative democracy.

Click to expand...

Appearently, this is related to the founding fathers fear of mob rule. In Europe, the word republic is used as an opposite to monarchy and not related to how democratic a country is. An american visiting Europe and claiming US isn't a democracy would put it in the company of China and North Korea. Today, when hostility towards US have reached new levels among European leftists, a common remark is that US isn't democratic, referring to the President being controlled by billion-$$ multinationals bla bla bla. Agreeing with them wouldn't exactly help european US-supporters in a discussion.

There is no such thing as "democracy or not". It's more or less democracy.

Of course US is democratic. Not as democratic as it could be, but none the less democratic.

Colonel said:

So to begin, a simple question, Is the US a true Democracy?

Click to expand...

No. The US is a Representative Demcratic Republic(if you will)

No, the US is a confederate republic.

However, some local governments in small US towns often do function as a true democracy.

Akka said:

Gosh... Again this ignorant rant about "it's not a democracy, it's a republic !".

Democracy and republics are different and totally compatible.

Read this and use words correctly, please.

Click to expand...

That's the definition of the propaganda term. In the Classical Age they could not co-exist. Democracy was only direct.

The early U.S. Government knew that all too well. Even our military knows.

RealGoober said:

In this, essentially the President IS the Government. Usually he receives the majority of votes from the majority of voters, the one (I think) exception was 2000.

Click to expand...

Just to let you know that was the fouth time something like this has happened. According to "HowStuffworks.com" the first three times were as follows....

# 1824: John Quincy Adams received more than 38,000 fewer votes than Andrew Jackson, but neither candidate won a majority of the Electoral College. Adams was awarded the presidency when the election was thrown to the House of Representatives.

# 1876: Nearly unanimous support from small states gave Rutherford B. Hayes a one-vote margin in the Electoral College, despite the fact that he lost the popular vote to Samuel J. Tilden by 264,000 votes. Hayes carried five out of the six smallest states (excluding Delaware). These five states plus Colorado gave Hayes 22 electoral votes with only 109,000 popular votes. At the time, Colorado had been just been admitted to the Union and decided to appoint electors instead of holding elections. So, Hayes won Colorado's three electoral votes with zero popular votes. It was the only time in U.S. history that small state support has decided an election.

# 1888: Benjamin Harrison lost the popular vote by 95,713 votes to Grover Cleveland, but won the electoral vote by 65. In this instance, some say the Electoral College worked the way it is designed to work by preventing a candidate from winning an election based on support from one region of the country. The South overwhelmingly supported Cleveland, and he won by more than 425,000 votes in six southern states. However, in the rest of the country he lost by more than 300,000 votes.

Click to expand...

Howstuffworks "How does the Electoral College Work?"

And also if you want to be techincal the GW did get the majority of voters in 2000... it was just voters in the electoral college, just not popular voters.


Anyway, I concider Athens the only "True Democracy" which has ever existed. In that all the citizens were able and I believe even required to vote and hold office at some point in their lives. However, I will not deny that the requirements for citizenship were unfair and descriminatory. But it was a different time with different standards.

Even in a modern western True Democracy (ignoring impracticalities), there would be requirements for eligability, including citizenship, mental health, and legal record (certain societies might exclude the last). Back then it was the same thing, they felt women weren't smart enough to make such important decisions, and slaves were concidered to be property and "foreigners" and thus it wasn't their concern. To them it would have been like having either a pet parrot or a potential adversary voting on political issues. The same reasons/concerns which limited citizenship in Athens limits modern voting elegibility. It's just we're more informed so the restricting qualifications are less descriminatory and more educated.

I wonder if we have any Political Science Majors posting in this forum so that they can tell us .