T/F: The U.S. is a democracy

[francoHFW]

53% are against Obamacare. 70% admit they don't understand it. The amount of Pub misinformation is incredible.

The USA is a democracy and a republic.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

53% are against Obamacare. 70% admit they don't understand it. The amount of Pub misinformation is incredible.

The USA is a democracy and a republic.

Read the Constitution and get back to me and tell me what form of Government it says we are supposed to have.

 

[Dragon]

Federalist no. 10, eh? Let's see what Mr. Madison actually had to say in that writing. He was speaking of the dangers to public order and the public good presented by the tendency of people to divide into factions.

"If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution."

Interestingly, here Madison seems by "the republican principle" to mean something indistinguishable from "the democratic principle," for he is certainly talking about majority rule, and how it acts to check the dangerous factional views whenever they fail to constitute a majority themselves.

(I should add here that, compared to Mr. Hamilton, Madison was much more enamored of democracy -- he was a protege of Jefferson after all -- and so the most inclined of the three Federalist authors to say good things about it. Madison earlier, in the constitutional convention, had advocated a single-chamber legislature, essentially the House unbalanced by the Senate.)

And yet here's what he had to say about pure democracy. I'm going to emphasize certain words and come back to them.

"From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual."

Madison is presenting here something that was true at the time he wrote: that a direct democracy must consist of a SMALL number of citizens. It would have been impossible in the late 18th century to make the U.S. into a direct democracy. In order to discuss, debate, and make collective decisions, it is always necessary that the people empowered to do this all be able to communicate quickly and readily with one another. At that time, this required that they all be physically in the same location, which the whole population of the United States could never be. Communication over distance happened at the speed of a man on horseback or a sailing ship. That was not fast enough for direct democracy to work to govern the American union. The ills he speaks of here, assuming he was right about this, all spring from this fact, that direct democracy must be engaged in by small numbers.

This technical problem has been solved today. We COULD implement a direct democracy, facilitated by the Internet, over the whole country, which would not be subject to the ills that Madison describes for that reason. But let's go on:

"A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

"The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended. . . ."

Madison goes on to particularly emphasize the latter point, and say that it is less likely for a malicious faction to command a majority of a large population spread over a large territory than of a small one -- and hence, he recommends the adoption of a democratic republic over a direct democracy, because the latter would necessarily be small and thus dangerously prone to faction.

But it's clear that what he is discussing is the distinction between two sorts of democracy -- representative or direct -- and in no way, shape or form rejecting democracy as a principle. On the contrary, he is affirming it with great vigor.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Federalist no. 10, eh? Let's see what Mr. Madison actually had to say in that writing. He was speaking of the dangers to public order and the public good presented by the tendency of people to divide into factions.

"If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution."

Interestingly, here Madison seems by "the republican principle" to mean something indistinguishable from "the democratic principle," for he is certainly talking about majority rule, and how it acts to check the dangerous factional views whenever they fail to constitute a majority themselves.

(I should add here that, compared to Mr. Hamilton, Madison was much more enamored of democracy -- he was a protege of Jefferson after all -- and so the most inclined of the three Federalist authors to say good things about it. Madison earlier, in the constitutional convention, had advocated a single-chamber legislature, essentially the House unbalanced by the Senate.)

And yet here's what he had to say about pure democracy. I'm going to emphasize certain words and come back to them.

"From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual."

Madison is presenting here something that was true at the time he wrote: that a direct democracy must consist of a SMALL number of citizens. It would have been impossible in the late 18th century to make the U.S. into a direct democracy. In order to discuss, debate, and make collective decisions, it is always necessary that the people empowered to do this all be able to communicate quickly and readily with one another. At that time, this required that they all be physically in the same location, which the whole population of the United States could never be. Communication over distance happened at the speed of a man on horseback or a sailing ship. That was not fast enough for direct democracy to work to govern the American union. The ills he speaks of here, assuming he was right about this, all spring from this fact, that direct democracy must be engaged in by small numbers.

This technical problem has been solved today. We COULD implement a direct democracy, facilitated by the Internet, over the whole country, which would not be subject to the ills that Madison describes for that reason. But let's go on:

"A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

"The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended. . . ."

Madison goes on to particularly emphasize the latter point, and say that it is less likely for a malicious faction to command a majority of a large population spread over a large territory than of a small one -- and hence, he recommends the adoption of a democratic republic over a direct democracy, because the latter would necessarily be small and thus dangerously prone to faction.

But it's clear that what he is discussing is the distinction between two sorts of democracy -- representative or direct -- and in no way, shape or form rejecting democracy as a principle. On the contrary, he is affirming it with great vigor.

The federalist papers are a good reference to look at and read However


Article IV - The States

Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

 

[Jackson]

Our Constitution in a marvelous piece of work. It is so underappreciated in this country..and sometimes in the SCOTUS.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Our Constitution in a marvelous piece of work. It is so underappreciated in this country..and sometimes in the SCOTUS.

SCOTUS got lazy and started to interpret the law instead of ruling by the law.

 

[Steelplate]

The federalist papers are NOT THE MOTHER FUCKIN' CONSTITUTION...

Thanks.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The federalist papers are NOT THE MOTHER FUCKIN' CONSTITUTION...

Thanks.

However

Article IV - The States

Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

 

[The T]

Our Constitution in a marvelous piece of work. It is so underappreciated in this country..and sometimes in the SCOTUS.

SCOTUS is a joke...they voted themselves more power early on in Maubury V. Madison

 

[Steelplate]

The federalist papers are NOT THE MOTHER FUCKIN' CONSTITUTION...

Thanks.

However

Article IV - The States

Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Well... if Republican meant douchebags like you... I'd bet they'd rephrase that.

 

[Steelplate]

By the way... A Republican form of government does not mean the Republican Party... it simply means that a system of government that is not a Monarchy or dictatorship.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

By the way... A Republican form of government does not mean the Republican Party... it simply means that a system of government that is not a Monarchy or dictatorship.

Did I say it was? However the Constitution does state what type of government we are to have in place yes or no?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The federalist papers are NOT THE MOTHER FUCKIN' CONSTITUTION...

Thanks.

However

Article IV - The States

Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Well... if Republican meant douchebags like you... I'd bet they'd rephrase that.

Give me D
guive me an E
give me an R
give me a P
What does that spell?
DERP

 

[Steelplate]

By the way... A Republican form of government does not mean the Republican Party... it simply means that a system of government that is not a Monarchy or dictatorship.

Did I say it was? However the Constitution does state what type of government we are to have in place yes or no?

Wow... Who said it was a pure Democracy? No one that I saw(unless I missed it).

Technically, we are a Democratic Republic. In reality, we are a Corporatist Plutocracy.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

By the way... A Republican form of government does not mean the Republican Party... it simply means that a system of government that is not a Monarchy or dictatorship.

Did I say it was? However the Constitution does state what type of government we are to have in place yes or no?

Wow... Who said it was a pure Democracy? No one that I saw(unless I missed it).

Technically, we are a Democratic Republic. In reality, we are a Corporatist Plutocracy.

I read nothing in the Constitution that states we are a Democratic Republic.

However the Constitution does state what type of government we are to have in place yes or no?

 

[Conservative]

a republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf.

us

 

[The T]

By the way... A Republican form of government does not mean the Republican Party... it simply means that a system of government that is not a Monarchy or dictatorship.

Did I say it was? However the Constitution does state what type of government we are to have in place yes or no?

Wow... Who said it was a pure Democracy? No one that I saw(unless I missed it).

Technically, we are a Democratic Republic. In reality, we are a Corporatist Plutocracy.

Led by bastards in the Congress...authenticated by Presidents... that pretend to be above it all...

Needs to change.

 

[The T]

Did I say it was? However the Constitution does state what type of government we are to have in place yes or no?

Wow... Who said it was a pure Democracy? No one that I saw(unless I missed it).

Technically, we are a Democratic Republic. In reality, we are a Corporatist Plutocracy.

I read nothing in the Constitution that states we are a Democratic Republic.

However the Constitution does state what type of government we are to have in place yes or no?

PaperPlate won't answer...so I will...

*YES*

 

[Steelplate]

Did I say it was? However the Constitution does state what type of government we are to have in place yes or no?

Wow... Who said it was a pure Democracy? No one that I saw(unless I missed it).

Technically, we are a Democratic Republic. In reality, we are a Corporatist Plutocracy.

I read nothing in the Constitution that states we are a Democratic Republic.

However the Constitution does state what type of government we are to have in place yes or no?

Does everyone get a vote? That's the Democratic part, you partisan hack.

 

[Steelplate]

But I suppose that's what you and Mrs T are getting at... you want the power of the vote taken away and only given to "worthy" people.