Is the US a democracy?

[PredFan]

BUT, they weren't meant to be. That is the point. The Founding Fathers didn't want us voting for Senators or the President. They knew that a democracy was open for oppression. They wanted the country to operate according to the Rule of Law, and not the Rule of Man.

This is, in fact, bullshit. Democracy is no more "open for oppression" than any other form of government. Look at the historical governments that were most oppressive of minorities. Is Nazi Germany not near, or perhaps at, the top of the list? How about Saudi Arabia and its treatment of women, gay people, and non-Muslims? Was Nazi Germany a democracy? Is Saudi Arabia a democracy? No and no.

Government in general, not democracy in particular, has a potential to violate the rights of people. Democracy, arguably, has less tendency to do so than any other form of government, BUT unfortunately not zero such tendency. Regardless of what form of government we have, we need checks and balances, we need an independent judiciary, and we need guarantees of individual rights -- no one seriously disputes this. But that has NOTHING to do with the question of democracy versus non-democracy. Nothing at all.

The reason why the Founding Fathers (or rather, SOME of them) distrusted democracy is completely different from what you suggest. A government of, by, and for the people is not likely to acquiesce in a system of privilege that benefits a small minority of rich people at the expense of everyone else. As the Founding Fathers were all rich men, they (or some of them) wished to preserve such a system of privilege. For that reason and no other, they crafted a system that restricted democracy.

We have since altered that system to allow for more democratic government. I completely disagree with you that this was a mistake.

This is bull shit from start to finish, such a left wing spin on what the Founding Fathers wanted. Ooooh they were evil rich men!

Blah blah blah zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............

 

[The T]

Majority Rule by Democracy in purest form is Mob Rule with no forethought or discussion.

Incorrect. No historical democracy, not even a direct democracy such as ancient Athens, fits that description.

One of the largest eventually failed that would be ROME. And guess why they failed...? For the same reasons we are headed to on this road the Progressives have placed us upon.

*Try Again*

 

[Dragon]

There exists a gross misunderstanding of the term "democracy" and how it applies to our form of government. Let's begin with what the word means: it is essentially a general term, and is defined as:


1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.
Notice that the basic definition of democracy is just a "government by the people." Notice also that a more specific definition includes a government by representatives of the people.

So far, so good, but:

To say that the Founding Fathers were opposed to democracy is absurd. Their whole purpose was to establish government by the people.

No. If that were so, then Senators would have been directly elected as well as Representatives, or, better yet, there would have been no Senate and the House would have been the sole legislative body; also, if that were so, then the president would have been directly elected and there would have been no Electoral College. It's clear from the outcome that many of the Founders distrusted democracy and didn't want it. But there was enough popular demand for it that they had to include democratic elements in the Constitution (and some of the Founders may have wanted that on principle as well), hence the existence of the House of Representatives.

They called their government a "republic," which is a form of democracy, but it is not a "pure" democracy.

A republic is not necessarily a form of democracy. An aristocratic republic is possible as well; there are historical examples. It's clear from the outcome that this was what the convention intended to create: an aristocratic republic but one with some democratic voice in the proceedings, amounting to legislative veto power (i.e., no law can be passed without the House concurring).

What you are calling a "pure" democracy might better be called a "direct" democracy. I suggest that the convention did not create such a government not because there is any particular danger in a direct democracy to the rights of the people, but partly because it would have endangered the privileges of those very rich men (as would a genuinely democratic republic), and partly because, at that level of technology, it was unworkable. Decision-making in government can only be carried on at the speed of communication, because discussion has to take place of the issues and a majority consensus reached. At the pace of horses and sailing ships, that was simply not possible over as great a distance as in the United States, and so a representative government (in part) was implemented instead.

I believe that the Internet has changed the technological picture so that today, a direct democracy would be feasible whereas in the late 18th century it was not. I would be in favor of creating such a government, but failing that, at the very least I would like to see genuine representative democracy restored, by removing the corrupting influence of money from the process.

 

[Yurt]

This is why your party will fail.

You LIE about the obvious.


We are a democracy and that is right from the founders mouths

jillian is a democrat.....

 

[Dragon]

One of the largest eventually failed that would be ROME.

Rome was never a democracy.

 

[Dragon]

This is bull shit from start to finish, such a left wing spin on what the Founding Fathers wanted. Ooooh they were evil rich men!

Blah blah blah zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............

Do you have anything coherent and logical to say in response or are you just going to foam at the mouth?

Can you deny that the attendees at the Constitutional Convention were all rich men? Can you deny that concern for property rights was high on their list? If so, say that, and present the evidence. Otherwise, you have said nothing.

 

[The T]

One of the largest eventually failed that would be ROME.

Rome was never a democracy.

They were a strange mix of a Democracy AND a Republic.

Thank me.

 

[Dragon]

Rome was never a democracy.

They were a strange mix of a Democracy AND a Republic.

Wrong. I can see I need to go into a little detail about how laws were passed and government carried on in the Roman Republic. Bear with me, this can't be said briefly.

The Roman Republic consisted of three ruling bodies: the magistrates, the Senate, and the People. (The formal title of the Republic was "Senatus Populusque Romanus" which meas "The Senate and the People of Rome.")

The Senate, which controlled the public purse and made day-to-day decisions but could not pass laws properly so called, was an aristocratic body without any pretensions. To belong to it, a person had to have an income of a million sesterces a year, all from land holdings rather than business, and usually be a member of one of the Famous Families.

The People consisted of various Assemblies (Comitia or Concilia) in which the Roman citizens voted. However, they did not vote directly. In the Comitia Centuriata, they voted in their Centuries, which were set up by wealth, with much smaller Centuries for the wealthy First Class than for the relatively poor Fifth Class (the poorest Romans had no vote in this Assembly at all). Each Century, not each citizen, cast a vote towards the total. So in practice, this was a voting body composed of all the richest Romans.

The other Assemblies voted by "tribes," with each citizen voting in his "tribe" and the "tribe" casting a vote towards the final decision. But most poor and lower-middle-class Roman citizens belonged to just four urban tribes, while the rich and aristocratic Romans were divided among 28 rural tribes. In effect, the rich and aristocrats got 28 votes, while the poor and not-so-rich got 4.

In no way was the Roman Republic a democracy. It was an aristocratic republic.

 

[PredFan]

This is bull shit from start to finish, such a left wing spin on what the Founding Fathers wanted. Ooooh they were evil rich men!

Blah blah blah zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............

Do you have anything coherent and logical to say in response or are you just going to foam at the mouth?

Can you deny that the attendees at the Constitutional Convention were all rich men? Can you deny that concern for property rights was high on their list? If so, say that, and present the evidence. Otherwise, you have said nothing.

No, I'm saying it's irrelevant and is modern-day leftist spin bull shit. The fact that they had money, and some of them like jefferson eventually went broke, is irrelevant. You are full of shit as usual.

 

[peach174]

This is bull shit from start to finish, such a left wing spin on what the Founding Fathers wanted. Ooooh they were evil rich men!

Blah blah blah zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............

Do you have anything coherent and logical to say in response or are you just going to foam at the mouth?

Can you deny that the attendees at the Constitutional Convention were all rich men? Can you deny that concern for property rights was high on their list? If so, say that, and present the evidence. Otherwise, you have said nothing.

They were not all rich men.
If President Washington had not married a wealthy woman he would not been wealthy.

Occupations and finances

The 1787 delegates practiced a wide range of high and middle-status occupations, and many pursued more than one career simultaneously. They did not differ dramatically from the Loyalists, except they were generally younger and less senior in their professions. Thirty-five had legal training, though not all of them practiced law. Some had also been local judges.

At the time of the convention, 13 men were merchants: Blount, Broom, Clymer, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Shields, Gilman, Gorham, Langdon, Robert Morris, Pierce, Sherman, and Wilson.
Seven were major land speculators: Blount, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Gorham, Robert Morris, Washington and Wilson.
Eleven speculated in securities on a large scale: Bedford, Blair, Clymer, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Franklin, King, Langdon, Robert Morris, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, and Sherman.
Twelve owned or managed slave-operated plantations or large farms: Bassett, Blair, Blount, Butler, Carroll, Jenifer, Jefferson, Mason, Charles Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Rutledge, Spaight, and Washington. Madison also owned slaves, as did Franklin, who later freed his slaves and was a key founder of the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Society. Alexander Hamilton was opposed to slavery and, with John Jay and other anti-slavery advocates, helped to found the first African free school in New York City. Jay helped to found the New York Manumission Society, Hamilton was an officer, and when Jay was governor of New York in 1798 he signed into law the state statute ending slavery as of 1821.
Broom and Few were small farmers.
Eight of the men received a substantial part of their income from public office: Baldwin, Blair, Brearly, Gilman, Livingston, Madison, and Rutledge.
Three had retired from active economic endeavors: Franklin, McHenry, and Mifflin.
Franklin and Williamson were scientists, in addition to their other activities.
McClurg, McHenry, and Williamson were physicians, and Johnson was a college president.

Family and finances

A few of the 1787 delegates were wealthy, but many of the country's top wealth-holders were Loyalists who went to Britain. Most of the others had financial resources that ranged from good to excellent, but there are other founders who were less than wealthy. On the whole they were less wealthy than the Loyalists.

 

[The T]

Rome was never a democracy.

They were a strange mix of a Democracy AND a Republic.

Wrong. I can see I need to go into a little detail about how laws were passed and government carried on in the Roman Republic. Bear with me, this can't be said briefly.

The Roman Republic consisted of three ruling bodies: the magistrates, the Senate, and the People. (The formal title of the Republic was "Senatus Populusque Romanus" which meas "The Senate and the People of Rome.")

The Senate, which controlled the public purse and made day-to-day decisions but could not pass laws properly so called, was an aristocratic body without any pretensions. To belong to it, a person had to have an income of a million sesterces a year, all from land holdings rather than business, and usually be a member of one of the Famous Families.

The People consisted of various Assemblies (Comitia or Concilia) in which the Roman citizens voted. However, they did not vote directly. In the Comitia Centuriata, they voted in their Centuries, which were set up by wealth, with much smaller Centuries for the wealthy First Class than for the relatively poor Fifth Class (the poorest Romans had no vote in this Assembly at all). Each Century, not each citizen, cast a vote towards the total. So in practice, this was a voting body composed of all the richest Romans.

The other Assemblies voted by "tribes," with each citizen voting in his "tribe" and the "tribe" casting a vote towards the final decision. But most poor and lower-middle-class Roman citizens belonged to just four urban tribes, while the rich and aristocratic Romans were divided among 28 rural tribes. In effect, the rich and aristocrats got 28 votes, while the poor and not-so-rich got 4.

In no way was the Roman Republic a democracy. It was an aristocratic republic.

Which disputes my claim...HOW exactly?

 

[Dragon]

No, I'm saying it's irrelevant and is modern-day leftist spin bull shit. The fact that they had money, and some of them like jefferson eventuall went brke, is irrelevant.

(Emphasis added.) Obviously you have strong feelings about this, so much so that it's impacting your ability to spell. My sense is it's also impacting your ability to think rationally.

I deny that the fact that all of the conventioners were rich men is "irrelevant." The fact that they were all rich men means that they would craft a government that served the interests of rich men. I am saying that this is the reason why we did not have a democratic republic from the get-go, and that any other reasons asserted amounted to a whitewash. I say that without the slightest hesitation or apology. I see no reason to believe otherwise, nor have you presented any reason for me to reconsider.

The claim that democracy is especially dangerous to the rights of minorities is demonstrably wrong. The claim that it promotes public disorder is demonstrably wrong. The claim that it results in "mob rule" is demonstrably wrong. The claim that it works against the privileges of the rich, however, is demonstrably true. I am comfortable with the idea that the men who designed the Constitution were rich and privileged and acted accordingly. I am not comfortable with the idea that they were idiots, however, and they would have had to be idiots to do what they did for reasons that are demonstrably untrue.

Instead, they did it for another reason and, by their lights, were right to do so. But that doesn't mean we, today, should agree with them.

 

[Dragon]

Which disputes my claim...HOW exactly?

You claim that Rome was a democracy. Obviously and demonstrably, it was not.

Try ancient Athens. That really was a democracy.

 

[The T]

Which disputes my claim...HOW exactly?

You claim that Rome was a democracy. Obviously and demonstrably, it was not.

Try ancient Athens. That really was a democracy.

I said it was a strange mix between a Democracy AND a Republic.

Try again assclown.

 

[Dragon]

I said it was a strange mix between a Democracy AND a Republic.

This is like claiming that a car is a strange mix between a four-wheeled vehicle and something made of metal. There is no conflict between being a republic and being a democracy, one does not "mix" the two, there is nothing "strange" about a government being both a republic and a democracy, and the fact remains that Rome was not a democracy at all.

 

[Liability]

Jefferson clearly called our form of govenment a Democracy

A republic has SOME attributes of a democracy.

That does not make our Federal Constitutional Republic a "democracy."

Damn. You DO adamantly insist on refusing to learn OR to ever be honest. You dishonest little hack.

 

[The T]

I said it was a strange mix between a Democracy AND a Republic.

This is like claiming that a car is a strange mix between a four-wheeled vehicle and something made of metal. There is no conflict between being a republic and being a democracy, one does not "mix" the two, there is nothing "strange" about a government being both a republic and a democracy, and the fact remains that Rome was not a democracy at all.

Son? Take it up with the historians...or in your case? The revisionists.

 

[Dragon]

They were not all rich men.
If President Washington had not married a wealthy woman he would not been wealthy.

And if any of them had not had lots of money, they wouldn't have been wealthy, either. But Washington DID marry a wealthy woman.

Occupations and finances . . .

At the time of the convention, 13 men were merchants: . . .
Seven were major land speculators: . . .
Eleven speculated in securities on a large scale: . . .
Twelve owned or managed slave-operated plantations or large farms: . . .

All of these, then, were rich men.

Broom and Few were small farmers.

Delegates to the Constitutional Convention: Jacob Broom

"Occupation: Businessman, Public Security Interests, Lending and Investments, Farmer, Mercantile, Manufacturing, and Shipping "

Hardly just a "small farmer." Would Few check out the same way? In any case, this calls your source into question, it seems.

A few of the 1787 delegates were wealthy, but many of the country's top wealth-holders were Loyalists who went to Britain.

It is not an argument against my statement that there existed men who were wealthier than some of the convention delegates.

 

[Dragon]

Take it up with the historians

I have already done so. I suggest you do the same. When you find a reputable historian who will agree with you that the Roman Republic was in any sense a democracy, get back to us, please.

 

[Liability]

I said it was a strange mix between a Democracy AND a Republic.

This is like claiming that a car is a strange mix between a four-wheeled vehicle and something made of metal. There is no conflict between being a republic and being a democracy, one does not "mix" the two, there is nothing "strange" about a government being both a republic and a democracy, and the fact remains that Rome was not a democracy at all.

Son? Take it up with the historians...or in your case? The revisionists.

He'd have to. For to CLAIM that there is supposedly "no conflict" between a republic and a democracy is facially false.

There IS, as I have noted, some overlap. But that's FAR from saying (at least accurately) that there's no "conflict."

OF COURSE there's a conflict.