Would you consider the US a democracy in 1776?

[Ethics]

I absolutely don't care about the US definition of the word. The world doesn't have to think like Americans. You should learn to accept diversity.

But your ignorance of our political structure does have to conform to the title given it. We are a Federal Republic... one with Democratic ideals and practice, but ultimately a Federal Republic with balanced power between State and Federal powers.

The President is not elected entirely by a majority in this country, and the majority doe not have absolute power in the legislative. The Electoral college, for the executive, is a system design to reward the majority in the individual states. That is wh it is a winner take all system for the majority in the state, and the electoral votes are weighted for the minority, or less populous states on the national scale. Our two house legislative body is designed as protection for the minority states, and their populations, in the Senate... while at the same time rewarding the majority, or more populous states, with greater representation in the House. This is all based on the balance between Federal and State level.

 

[Perfection]

Democracy doesn't need to indicate power by an absolute 51% majority rather that the powers lie in the hands of the people, which still is true even in cases where 51% support cannot make a decision. These ideas of an electoral college are just methods designed to ensure the people's role in ruling not to circumvent it.

 

[Free Enterprise]

There are different ways of classifying governments. Note most of these systems are mutually exclusive from one another. There is not necessarily one way that you have to go by however each system has its own merits. Some have large quantities of depth while others use political terms based on the original meanings. Some systems leave certain things out while revealing other useful things.

The popular trend currently is to argue that democracies are those governments which secure rights and liberties for their citizens, are governed by the rule of law, have relatively competitive elections (at least two parties), and is sometimes thought to require a prosperous market economy. This method contains much opposition to the origins of the term democracy though these requirements are currently fairly popular in terms of determining what is a democracy (the ancient Greeks would not have agreed with it). This could change in the near future just as the terms conservative and liberal have changed frequently since their emergence in political discourse.

One effective method of classification is to argue that there are three foundations of all state governments. These are autocracy (rule by one person), oligarchy (rule by a few people), and democracy (rule by the people or perhaps rule by the vast majority of the people). For the purposes of this discussion consider that a democracy only requires people at the age of 18 or older as counting for democracy (since that is a common age at which one gains the suffrage). All governments have some combination of these elements. For example electing representatives counts both for oligarchy (rule by a few) and democracy (popular election).

There are many forms of each element.

Autocracy: Monarchy, despotism, dictatorship, etc.
Oligarchy: Military Junta, Ruling Clique, Aristocracy, etc.
Democracy: Mob rule and standard direct democracy (possibly other forms).

I will work on making a government chart that I will post on this forum (not much time right now so it may take a few days).

 

[Ethics]

Democracy doesn't need to indicate power by an absolute 51% majority rather that the powers lie in the hands of the people, which still is true even in cases where 51% support cannot make a decision. These ideas of an electoral college are just methods designed to ensure the people's role in ruling not to circumvent it.

When you vote for the Presidency in the United States, you are doing so indirectly through your State and its electoral college votes. You're state is representing you on a national level. The notion that the electoral college is a protection primarily from the people is wrong. The constitution was derived on the failed practice of the AoC that realized individual state power was running rampant, but at the same time, needed a balance to any possible majorities abusing Federal power against smaller states in a national context. It is why Senators were not directly elected. They were a direct acknowledgement to State Power on the Federal level. Direct election only came about later due to late 19th century corruption, and movements such the Populists failed attempts to seek change through the established parties.

When you vote for congressman and senators, your state's power is being represented, not your individually in a national sense. You are represented by your local state legislature. Sectionalism, and regional differences are still alive and well in the age of 2004. California may have national power through its representative on some issue, but is limited to those issues to the other 49 states. The recognition of State and Federal division of power is an important point in understanding why we are a Federal Republic.

I will concede that the United States is a democracy, when the state level of government is completely abolished, and dividing lines of state territory in this country are removed. Until then, we are a Federal Republic, with the individual states acting in the own interests of their populations, with a Federal overbody, represented by states, representing nationally.

 

[Perfection]

But all of these overlying layers of control are and always have been at root derived from popular election, now the fairness of the federal republic aspect may be questioned, but it certainly wouldn't negate it being a democracy.

 

[Marla_Singer]

But your ignorance of our political structure does have to conform to the title given it. We are a Federal Republic... one with Democratic ideals and practice, but ultimately a Federal Republic with balanced power between State and Federal powers.

I should have counted the number of time I've been illegitimately called "ignorant" on this board. It would be rather impressive.

The question which was asked in this thread is rather if the US were already a democracy in 1776, a democracy as in a representative democracy. Being a Republic isn't necessarily a synonimous of being a representative democracy. As I've already said, Iran, China, North Korea, Kirghizstan are all republics... but which one of those is a representative democracy ?

In the case of the US, the country is both a Republic and a Democracy today. The question of this thread is whether it was already the case in 1776. Actually, I'm curious about this. So let's get back on topic.

 

[luiz]

Careful with those words. Representative Democracy is a fancy way of saying Republic, Perfection. You will (hopefully) learn about it in college.

Zarn, a Republic and Democracy are not mutually exclusive. '

It's not like in Civ.

It's not incorrect to classify the US as a democratic republic, and the UK as a democratic constitutional monarchy.

Naturally neither of those states are 100% democratic, but the most usual definition of democracy is not solely applied to states that are 100% democratic, even because such states don't exist.

 

[Perfection]

Well back on topic, in 1776 we really didn't have an organized government, just the second continental congress which was a pretty loose collection of delegates from accross the embryonic U.S., our first true government wasn't formed until 1777.

 

[Free Enterprise]

At some risk I was able to finish the government chart this night. There are doubtless other forms of governments which I did not have time to put on the chart.

The chart makes the case that the United States has a mixture of the three elements of government. The democratic element is perhaps now a plurality of the system of government of the United States. Note that the United States has actually become slightly more autocratic in the post World War II era.

Edit: Chart has been changed as a result of certain information that has been explained by other posters (currently Marla_Singer) on this thread. Some communist regimes recategorized.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Is there really such a drastic difference between oligarchy and autocracy ?

Please clarify the definition

 

[Yom]

Careful with those words. Representative Democracy is a fancy way of saying Republic, Perfection. You will (hopefully) learn about it in college.

And using "hopefully" when it is not modifying a "thinking" verb is also techinically incorrect, something that I hope that you learn sometime, Zarn.

Either way, let's not squabble about what's correct and insult each other.

I don't believe the U.S. was a democracy (either direct or representative) until universal suffrage was granted. Otherwise, you could argue that China and the U.S.S.R. were democracies because there was voting by those who were eligible (i.e. the Politburo).

 

[Free Enterprise]

Oligarchies are ruled by a small group of people. Autocracies are ruled by one person. There maybe is not so large of a difference unless the oligarchy has a very large ruling class (like mass nobilities during the Middle Ages of feudalism under Tokugawa Japan). Democracy is the most different branch. I like the chart a lot thus I include oligarchy as separate from autocracy.

Although both are usually authoritarian (occasionally totalitarian) they sometimes are opposed to each other. In many oligarchies there is one person that seeks to become the most powerful (thereby forming an autocracy) whilst the other members of the ruling class seek to prevent such a thing from taking place.

The United States has become more democratic with time so I would label it a democratic republic now (though it simultaneously is a Constitutional Republic making it a Constitutional Democratic Republic).

Actually perhaps I previously somewhat overcriticized democracy. It should be the strongest element in the government however it does not have to be the only one. Autocracy is the most risky branch to focus on in government(tyrannies usually are autocracies).

 

[Marla_Singer]

Here are the main regimes I've defined for a book this summer (I've just made the translation which is rather approximative, sorry) :

• Absolute Monarchy : Not democratic kind of regime lead by a sovereign monarch holding the full powers.
• Constitutional Monarchy : Regime lead by a sovereign monarch holding powers which are limited by the constitution.
• Parliamentary Monarchy : Monarchic regime of a democratic kind where the executive is chosen by an elected parliament.
• Parliamentary Republic : Democratic kind of regime with a soft separation between powers where the executive is responsible in front of an elected parliament.
• Presidential Republic : Democratic kind of regime with a strict separation between powers where the elected chief of state is directly responsible in front of the citizens.
• Semi-Presidential Republic : Democratic kind of regime where the elected chief of state is directly responsible in front of the citizens and shares his executive power with a government chosen by an elected parliament.
• Authoritarian Presidential Republic : Authoritarian regime where the chief of state assumes alone most of the powers.
• Popular Republic : Regime inspired by Marxism where the unique party has a decisive authority in all spheres of power.
• Military Regime : Authoritarian regime where the army controls the institutions.

Only three countries couldn't hold in such categories : Iran (Islamic Republic), Singapore (Authoritarian Parliamentary Republic), and Somalia (Implosion of the state in 1993).

 

[Marla_Singer]

Oligarchies are ruled by a small group of people. Autocracies are ruled by one person. There maybe is not so large of a difference unless the oligarchy has a very large ruling class (like mass nobilities during the Middle Ages of feudalism under Tokugawa Japan). Democracy is the most different branch. I like the chart a lot thus I include oligarchy as separate from autocracy.

Well, China is more oligarchic than autocratic, since the leader is named by the Party... and it's globally the Party which holds all powers. Don't you think ?

On the other side, Castro's Cuba is more Autocratic... but even the former USSR was more oligarchic than really autocratic... especially after Stalin.

 

[Free Enterprise]

Well, China is more oligarchic than autocratic, since the leader is named by the Party... and it's globally the Party which holds all powers. Don't you think ?

On the other side, Castro's Cuba is more Autocratic... but even the former USSR was more oligarchic than really autocratic... especially after Stalin.

I agree that China is currently more oligarchic than autocratic. Maoist China may have initially been somewhat of an autocracy though. If it was not then the chart will need an adjustment. I will try to add the current Chinese regime to the chart eventually (edit: added).

I will make adjustments for the Soviet Union to differentiate Stalinist from post-Stalinist. The chart is currently in its first version. Edit: Chart changed. Future changes to chart may occur if necessary.


That is a good and interesting government list you have compiled. Will the book be avaible for purchase soon? I was wondering earlier today whether anyone in these forums had written any books. There are apparently people who have contributed to writing books which is very interesting.

 

[Marla_Singer]

I agree that China is currently more oligarchic than autocratic. Maoist China may have initially been somewhat of an autocracy though. If it was not then the chart will need an adjustment. I will try to add the current Chinese regime to the chart eventually.

I will make adjustments for the Soviet Union to differentiate Stalinist from post-Stalinist. The chart is currently in its first version.

Yes, I think such a historical separation would be interesting. It's indeed a nice idea to get it in a triangle. It's true we can't compare French feudalism with Ceaucescu's Romania... even if in both case, there wasn't any form of democracy.

That is a good and interesting government list you have compiled. Will the book be avaible for purchase soon? I was wondering earlier today whether anyone in these forums had written any books. There are apparently people who have contributed to writing books which is very interesting.

Oh this is only a french book unfortunately, it's available in most of stores around here but unfortunately I don't think it will reach the US. Actually, it's an interesting book about geopolitics where "experts" have written stories about the current crisis and so on in the world. The quality of those stories is quite heterogenous unfortunately... some are very well-inspired, others are pure garbage. I was simply in charge of the country profiles... that's why I decided to "harmonize" the descriptions of government. It was fun to do, but except having my name appearing in the book, I didn't get any money for it ! (I was an unpaid intern).

 

[Free Enterprise]

Oh this is only a french book unfortunately, it's available in most of stores around here but unfortunately I don't think it will reach the US. Actually, it's an interesting book about geopolitics where "experts" have written stories about the current crisis and so on in the world. The quality of those stories is quite heterogenous unfortunately... some are very well-inspired, others are pure garbage. I was simply in charge of the country profiles... that's why I decided to "harmonize" the descriptions of government. It was fun to do, but except having my name appearing in the book, I didn't get any money for it ! (I was an unpaid intern).

Will a picture of it appear anywhere on the internet (perhaps the organization has a webpage)? Perhaps once the book comes out there could be thread about it....

Edit: Hopefully it will get positive ratings on Amazon.com

 

[Marla_Singer]

Will a picture of it appear anywhere on the internet (perhaps the organization has a webpage)? Perhaps once the book comes out there could be thread about it....

Here's the Amazon page for the book : L'année stratégique 2005 (Strategic Year 2005).

Here's a small picture of it :

EDIT : LOL ! I've just found it on a japanese website !

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Moderator Action: Moved to History.

 

[Stapel]

Yes, because it must be fear that people wish to own guns, and not some belief at the core of American ideology that a government has no right to control or deny such property of its citizens.

In NL it's extremely easy to legally own a gun. But you do need a permit! You need two things to get one:
-A 'clean-sheet' report from the police
-A diploma from a registered gun-club, hunting club or something alike.

With these two you go to the townhall, where you will be provided a license. Buying a gun is no problem at all.
The real difference is that hardly anyone wants a gun.