Democracy and republic

[Sims2789]

Democracy has two meanings:

2) Any democratic form of government (including constitutional monarchies with a joke monarch like Spain, Republics, Federal Republics, and Democracies).
1) A government where everyone votes on everything.

Term 1 is most commonly used, but when peopel say, "The US is a republic, not a democracy, stupid!" they are using the other, less-used term.

Republic has three meanings. They are:

1) A representative form of government like Rome's or the US's without a monarch or a country with this form of government.
2) A representative form of government with universal sufferage like the US after the 1960's without a monarch or a country with this form of government.
3) Any government or country without a monarch.

The first two terms are most common, and they can be distinguished depending on the subject (so if you're talking about Rome being a Republic then it is obviously term 1 you speak of). Occasionally, term 3 is used. An example is the World Almanac, which calls Russia and Belaruss republics, despite both being despotates, especially the latter.

 

[phoenix_night]

Democracy + Republic = Not mutually exclusive.

The USA is a republic in that it has no monarchy, but also in its form of government. Guess what? It's also democratic!

 

[Akka]

I get the feeling that people don't bother to read the starting of the thread...

All these points were already answered...

 

[MrPresident]

The United States is not a democracy It's a republic.

article 4 section 4 of the US consitution


If you say the pledge of alliegance you will also hear the word republic, but not the word democracy.

The Founding Fathers did not have the modern conception of democracy. To them a democracy meant a direct democracy, or "mob rule". In this, as well as many other things, the founding fathers were wrong.

 

[phoenix_night]

Many points have been made, many points have been answered, many points have been ignored. That's the way CFC works.

 

[Shadylookin]

Democracy + Republic = Not mutually exclusive.

The USA is a republic in that it has no monarchy, but also in its form of government. Guess what? It's also democratic!

no it isn't. Did everyone get brainwashed and forget 4 years ago. George W. Vs Al Gore ya that thing. the American people don't get to vote for their president appointed electors get to vote for him, the electorial college isn't a place you graduate from. While traditionally the electors vote the way their state citizens do they don't actually have to. Every state gets 3 electors as well regardless of population. This is undemocratic since not only are the individual peoples votes not couted, but also it's not even representative of each states population.

The US senate. Every state gets 2 senators regardless how big you are. This is undemocratic as it stops the majority.

The executive branch can stop a bill even if it did pass the 2 houses by a majority. This is undemocratic.

the judicial branch isn't even elected for christ's sake. an entire branch of government possibly the most important branch is not elected, ya that's democracy

The entire system of checks and balances is undemocratic because even if something is supported by the majority doesn't mean it will become law.

The US is by no definition of the word I have seen a democracy.

 

[Shadylookin]

The Founding Fathers did not have the modern conception of democracy. To them a democracy meant a direct democracy, or "mob rule". In this, as well as many other things, the founding fathers were wrong.

mob rule=majority rule=democracy.

Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner.

 

[Akka]

All this has already been answered previously :

Hem, no.
"democracy" doesn't mean "government by the people", but "POWER to the people".
"kratia" is "power". It's "archia" that means "government" (like in "monarchy", ie "government of one").

It's precisely this misconception I'm trying to deter with this thread : "democracy" means that, ultimately, it's the people that has the power. Be it in direct democracy, parlementiary democracy or federal democracy, the fact is that, in the end, it's always the people that hold the power.

That the elections are made in an absurd way that doesn't reflect the best the suffrages, is irrelevant to the point that it's still the people that has the power (as it's the one who elects the representative).

 

[Shadylookin]

All this has already been answered previously :

That the elections are made in an absurd way that doesn't reflect the best the suffrages, is irrelevant to the point that it's still the people that has the power (as it's the one who elects the representative).

the people don't actually get to elect the president electors do, the representation is not equal, and just because the representatives have a majority doesn't mean their decisions will become law. All signs point to not being a democracy.

 

[phoenix_night]

The US is by no definition of the word I have seen a democracy.

That's the problem, your shoddy definition of the word "democracy".

 

[MrPresident]

mob rule=majority rule=democracy.

Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner.

That's direct democracy. Democracy always contains some kind of minority rights, be it freedom of speech, freedom of worship, or whatever.

 

[Shadylookin]

That's the problem, your shoddy definition of the word "democracy".

Democracy should be the equal say of all the people. Of course while I don't think representative democracy as it is call is a democracy at all. The fact is that even if it was considered democracy the United States does even live up to that. Just because the representatives have a majority on a decision doesn't mean it will become law. and the judicial branch isn't elected not being elected doesn't sound very democratic

 

[Shadylookin]

That's direct democracy. Democracy always contains some kind of minority rights, be it freedom of speech, freedom of worship, or whatever.

no those are called liberties. undeniable rights no matter what the majority has to say about it. they are not democratic they're the exact opposite taking the minorities will above the majority.

 

[MrPresident]

There are no absolute rights. That's part of the whole American indoctrination process. Freedom of speech is restricted. For example, you can't slander or libel a person. You can't falsely shout fire in a theatre. And so on.

And the legislative branch is elected in America.

 

[Shadylookin]

There are no absolute rights. That's part of the whole American indoctrination process. Freedom of speech is restricted. For example, you can't slander or libel a person. You can't falsely shout fire in a theatre. And so on.

And the legislative branch is elected in America.

your point.

sorry I meant judicial I'll go back and change that

 

[Yom]

Democracy has two meanings:

2) Any democratic form of government (including constitutional monarchies with a joke monarch like Spain, Republics, Federal Republics, and Democracies).
1) A government where everyone votes on everything.

Term 1 is most commonly used, but when peopel say, "The US is a republic, not a democracy, stupid!" they are using the other, less-used term.

First of all (assuming that you simply mis-numbered the terms, which I cannot understand), term 1 is in no way an acceptable definition, a tautology at best.
You simply said that a democracy is a democratic form of government without actually specifying what is required to have a democratic form of government.
Sorry if I seem harsh, but it really is a pathetic definition.

Republic has three meanings. They are:

1) A representative form of government like Rome's or the US's without a monarch or a country with this form of government.
2) A representative form of government with universal sufferage like the US after the 1960's without a monarch or a country with this form of government.
3) Any government or country without a monarch.

The first two terms are most common, and they can be distinguished depending on the subject (so if you're talking about Rome being a Republic then it is obviously term 1 you speak of). Occasionally, term 3 is used. An example is the World Almanac, which calls Russia and Belaruss republics, despite both being despotates, especially the latter.

I believe your third definition is a little off. To not be a monarchy, the country must simply not be governed by a succession of rulers from the same family or class. Such a definition would make oligarchies and despots republics, which is not the case. Russia and Belaruss are in fact republics, because they have elected representatives. Even during the days of the U.S.S.R., it was could (very loosely, however) be described as a republic, as the leader had to be elected by a general committee, which in turn was elected by members of the communist party (of course, Stalin reversed this, but that's another story).

Again, I do not mean to come off as hostile.

 

[MrPresident]

sorry I meant judicial I'll go back and change that

The judicial branch enforce laws. They do not make them therefore are not required to be democratic.

 

[Hitro]

The judicial branch enforce laws. They do not make them therefore are not required to be democratic.

Furthermore they are elected (or appointed) by those we elect or some others those who were appointed by those we elect.

We (at least in Germany, I think in the UK as well) also don't directly elect the executive branch but it's elected by the ones we elect. Same applies to the electoral college in the U.S..

 

[Shadylookin]

The judicial branch enforce laws. They do not make them therefore are not required to be democratic.

the executive branch is supposed to enforce the laws. The judicial branch is supposed to review the laws and see if they can actually become laws or not. the outcomes they reach can greatly effect civil liberties for all americans.

 

[MrPresident]

Agreed. There is some form of democracy in there, however weak.