Why We Are A Republic, And Not A Democracy

I definitely agree that democracy should be viewed as a commitment and is a deep idea that refuses easy definition. I do, however, want to avoid the situation where each perspective gets its own freedom to define democracy how it chooses, accusing all other perspectives of being anti-democratic.

 

How could it be any other way? There’s no referee of democracy. Our military and economic might has often made us arrogant enough to play that role, and we’ve been awful at it, sometimes even snuffing out nascent democratic movements in the name of national interest.

 

1. We live in a republic
2. We also live in a democracy

The two concepts are not mutually exclusive and in fact have a large amount of overlap. Anyone who thinks the US is not a democracy probably knows neither the definition of "democracy" nor "republic."

 

Because our founders were wealthy businessmen lawyers and slaveowners. They knew there is always going to be more little people than people like them. That is why

 

who did it make unequal to who?

 

Who is saying we are a pure democracy? There isn’t a need to correct someone who says we are a democracy, because we are a democracy.

 

The court didn’t rule fetuses have equal rights lol. If the states can determine it then that means they can say a fetus has no rights. As river asked who are you talking about?

 

California might be better served to break up into 70 states. All 70 would be bigger than Wyoming.

 

In both cases it is very clear, yet you insist on being obtuse. Why do you feign ignorance like this?

 

It would be another way if there were a set of democratic norms or laws upon which a critical mass of us agreed. If this isn’t the case and the word democracy comes to mean “that which which we agree”, the term loses all meaning, and there becomes no real point in suggesting that the Supreme Court or any other institution is not democratic.

 

I don’t know if you meant to tag me with this post, but I wasn’t referring to Roe or anything concrete. Mostly just trying to probe our definition of what is “democracy”.

 

I don’t think that’s true, every authoritarian regime uses the artifice of popular will or democracy to lend it legitimacy. Does the Islamic republic of Iran render the word republic or democracy meaningless? Does the republican or Democratic Party doing things that are not particularly republican or democratic make the word meaningless? Only if people let it. That’s why I say it’s a set of practices. The best way of making democracy meaningful is to actually practice it rigorously.

 

Individual opinions on democracy, several taken out of context, do not change the reality that we are a democracy.

Democracy does not require majority of plurality rule. This seems to be what's tripping you up. There is representational democracy. There is electoral democracy. There are a lot of different methods under which democracies operate.

Local and state elections: almost exclusively direct democracy and/or representational
Senate and House: direct democracy
President: electoral democracy
SCOTUS: representative democracy

Even if every single founding father hated democracy, it's what we have and always have.

 

I agree with this. What I am more thinking about is members of one party calling another anti-democratic because they prefer $12 minimum wage to $8 or because of their stance on which genders should be able to use which bathrooms. Democratic issues, IMO, are those associated with the decision making process not the particular outcomes of the process.

 

Of course this is a Plank thread, of course it is wrong, and of course he throws out an ignorant accusation at the end of his post.
The U.S. Is Both a Republic and a Democracy

 

The Electoral College is a crappy system designed because the founders didn't trust the voters to make wise decisions. The Wyomings and North Dakotas of the world are completely neglected in presidential elections. All the EC does is push a disproportionate amount of resources into certain states that could swing. It doesn't protect small states.

The value of a national popular vote is that every person's vote counts. It incentivizes candidates to not just focus resources on winnable states. In 2020, there were 6 million Californians who voted for Donald Trump. There were over 5 million Texas who voted for Joe Biden. Imagine if there was an incentive for Republicans to campaign hard for President in California because those votes actually counted.

 

We'll, the united states became the most prosperous and powerful nation in history as a constitutional federal republic, which although similar in many respects is different from a democracy in ways that matter. For example not basing everything on a popular vote by people who don't have any idea how to manage their own finances.

It may be a dim view but it's correct. The best way to improve the human condition is to allow each human to improve theirs how they see fit through their own blood, sweat and tears.

 

It incentives politicians to buy as many votes as possible. When more than half of households already don't pay federal taxes it's a forgone conclusion that the one with the most handouts will win. Future generations be damned, as long as the current takers get their stuff and congressman smith gets to ensure his family remains elite for a few more years.