Why We Are A Republic, And Not A Democracy

Do we have an clear understanding of what are these sets of practices, allowing us to demarcate democracy from non-democracy?

 

Notice Magaga is now pushing back on the tenets of democracy during the same period trump and his ilk are denying elections results because they can’t win them. It’s more than coincidence.

btw, the senate would have a decent sized repub majority right now if it wasn’t for maga. Just something to consider when deciding between a “rino” or a hw type during the next primary season. Oh and that includes potus.

 

As I said, the basic practice is power sharing on egalitarian terms, this would apply in all settings not simply a government (in fact its arguably more important outside a government setting). It means collective decision making that accounts for a broad array of experiences and views, and a respect for the dignity and humanity of others. It is the belief that a division of labor, hierachies and domination of others arent an essential fact of "human nature."

 

Yes I hate the constitution.

Just so I’m clear, what does the constitution say?

 

If we aren't a democracy, how can our democracy be in danger?

 

I think this description sounds nice, but I am not sure it’s gotten us closer to a test for democracy, as it introduces further puzzles. E.g. How do we know when we have power sharing on egalitarian terms? If you see a person who serves only as a teacher working for a school, so you might see division of labor and domination. However, another observer might see a consensual cooperative relationship between autonomous agents.

 

Self-governance is an ongoing project, not a yes or no state of being. We are not necessarily bound by decisions people have made that are long dead or had different ideas. If it was a checklist it would be pretty easy to determine who’s a democracy and who isn’t. That’s why we can’t just spread democracy like our foreign policy thinks it can.

 

“Virus!” is the new “Squirrel!” Try to stay on topic.

 

There's checks for both so there's a mix of representation by population and representation by states.

The House offers representation by population, the Senate offers representation by states.

The Presidency is decided based on a combination of state power and power based on total population.

Yes, proportionally Wyoming has more power per person than California because Wyoming has less people, but California has more total power, as it has more electoral votes.

As for "why," I don't think it's fair to the Wyomings or the North Dakotas of the world to be completely neglected and being the sheep in the metaphor you offered while all anybody cares about are the states with the most population. The electoral college balances the playing field to some degree in favor of states. Is it perfect? No. Find me one that is and get back to me. Hell, find me one that's preferable.

 

I think there's a little "talking past each other" here.

When people say, "we are not a democracy," nobody is saying "we don't have the right to vote," and nobody is saying "the people do not elect elected officials." All they are saying is, "we do not have a system based on majority rule," which is "democracy" in the purest sense of the word.

So if by "we are not a democracy," people mean "we do not have a system based on majority rule," that is the truth.

If by "we are not a democracy," people mean "you don't have the right to vote," obviously that's not true, but who is saying that?

 

Because democracy in its purest sense means "if a majority of people want slavery and segregation, that means slavery and segregation should be the law of the land."

Pure democracy means the will of the majority trumps individual rights.

And in the context of American government, it would mean that state representation is essentially meaningless at the federal level. Size always wins.

 

Who exactly is "they," Phil?

 

The people who used to be championing democracy, but are now shifting their focus to the republic side of our democratic republic. I thought that was pretty clear?

 

Yes and who are they?

Obviously you're saying "they" used to be championing democracy and now they're not. But that doesn't tell me anything about who "they" are politically.

 

The constitution is largely irrelevant to the discussion it’s been perfectly compatible with democratic ideas and slavery. Proponents of democracy often cite the Guarantee clause, which has barely been tested or championed. Much of the democratic elements of the constitution have been neutered or remain dormant, typically held in check by the anti democratic elements and judicial legalism. Of course it is in the interests of authoritarian types to make distinction between a Republican form of government and ‘democracy.’ Their idea of a republic is like the Chinese people’s republic kind I guess.

 

Article II Section 2 points out how electors are appointed and how many per state.

Article II Section 3 points out how the votes are counted and, in effect, how the Presidency is decided.

 

How can there be self-governance when others are imposing their will* on you ?

*voting

 

Correct. A lot of people on this thread do not understand this.

 

Is this like when you were trying to attack the people calling out those who were actively working against America by trying to say we were calling out all Republicans?

 

In both cases I was just trying to gather who exactly you're calling out. As in what group "MAGA Republicans" and "they" encompass. I think that's completely fair.

Are you going to make me ask a third time?