Zone1 America is not a democracy its a republic ?

[Stryder50]

Here's a near six minute video that does a good job of;.....

What is the difference between a Democracy and a Republic?​

 

[Tommy Tainant]

So, you have various bodies of government in the U.S., some state, some local, some federal. When we talk about a republic, we are talking at the federal level, but really, even state governments are republics because, while we vote for our representation, that’s where it ends for us. THEY are the ones who basically do what we ask them to, supposedly. Out leaders rule according to the cotus, that’s essentially a republic. A democracy leans more toward the people rule by majority.

So you use the democratic process to elect people yo office.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Here's a near six minute video that does a good job of;.....

What is the difference between a Democracy and a Republic?​

I made that point in the OP.

 

[Stryder50]

I made that point in the OP.

Not as clearly as you may think.

 

[ThisIsMe]

So you use the democratic process to elect people yo office.

Correct, the people elect our leaders. Once they are in office, the people do not have an active role in running the country. The elected leaders do.

We don’t have a majority rule in the United States. It’s why republicans can win presidencies because of the electoral college. They didn’t want mob rule, they wanted each state to have weight in the elections.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Correct, the people elect our leaders. Once they are in office, the people do not have an active role in running the country. The elected leaders do.

We don’t have a majority rule in the United States. It’s why republicans can win presidencies because of the electoral college. They didn’t want mob rule, they wanted each state to have weight in the elections.

It sounds like an elite wanting to retain power.
There are quirks in all systems but generally the one who gets most votes wins, That is how it should be.. There is no upside to any alternative.

 

[ThisIsMe]

It sounds like an elite wanting to retain power.
There are quirks in all systems but generally the one who gets most votes wins, That is how it should be.. There is no upside to any alternative.

Well, that’s how things are run in the rest of the world maybe, but not in America.

Do you think it’s right that people in new your should have the ability to inflict their will on the rest of the country?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Well, that’s how things are run in the rest of the world maybe, but not in America.

Do you think it’s right that people in new your should have the ability to inflict their will on the rest of the country?

On narional issues yes. Policy should reflect the will of the people.On local issues it should be the will of local people. Whatever the majority wants.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

On narional issues yes. Policy should reflect the will of the people.On local issues it should be the will of local people. Whatever the majority wants.

But what if the majority is ignorant of the issues? Democracy will always fail because the informed are always outvoted by the uninformed and misinformed.

 

[ThisIsMe]

On narional issues yes. Policy should reflect the will of the people.On local issues it should be the will of local people. Whatever the majority wants.

Well, I disagree and I assume the founders disagreed. Places like New York, California, they are heavily populated by democrats. I think they said that if we decided elections by popular vote, they would only have to win a handful of states. The rest would be left out. This means the liberals in those states would be able to dictate the policy for the rest of the country, and the entire populations of whole states across the country would have zero affect on elections.

I assume the founder sought to avoid this, which is why they didn’t set it up that way.

 

[Stryder50]

On narional issues yes. Policy should reflect the will of the people.On local issues it should be the will of local people. Whatever the majority wants.

Prior to 1861 a majority of voters in the Southern States wanted to preserve slavery. Then sought to seceded from the Union.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Well, I disagree and I assume the founders disagreed. Places like New York, California, they are heavily populated by democrats. I think they said that if we decided elections by popular vote, they would only have to win a handful of states. The rest would be left out. This means the liberals in those states would be able to dictate the policy for the rest of the country, and the entire populations of whole states across the country would have zero affect on elections.

I assume the founder sought to avoid this, which is why they didn’t set it up that way.

Something that the great men who founded this country recognized was that the people who lived in densely-populated states had different needs and interests than those who lived in sparsely-populated states. If representation was equal for each individual, then the individuals of those in densely-populated states would be overwhelmingly represented, while the interests of those in sparsely-populated states would effectively be disenfranchised.

That is why Congress was set up as two houses, one in which the people were represented, and another in which the states were represented; and why the Electoral College was set up to reflect this same balance.

I think the situation is even sharper, now, than it was then.

To oversimplify, let us assume that there are two states, with two kinds of people. Let's say we have New York, populated by stockbrokers, and Wyoming, populated by farmers.

Clearly, the farmers in Wyoming have different needs and interests than the stock broker in New York. But the New York stockbrokers far outnumber the Wyoming farmers.

In a system where every voter is equally represented, the stockbrokers would pretty much dominate government, while the farmers are effectively disenfranchised. We'd have a nation of, by, and for stockbrokers.

In the House of Representatives, the stockbrokers are overwhelmingly represented, but in the Senate, the farmers are represented equally with the stockbrokers.

 

[surada]

The Constitution establishes a federal democratic republic form of government. That is, we have an indivisible union of 50 sovereign States. It is a democracy because people govern themselves. It is representative because people choose elected officials by free and secret ballot.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Prior to 1861 a majority of voters in the Southern States wanted to preserve slavery. Then sought to seceded from the Union.

Slavery is not a local issue. It affects everyone in the country.
Furthermore it is immoral. The slavers were rightly crushed like chaff.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I see this repeated a lot on this forum. Ive never really understood this point of view and what those stating it are getting at.

It usually gets stated when some undemocratic action needs to be justified. Americans vote on everything. And they value their vote. People who vote are the democratic process.

And that might be the key word. Republic might be the title but democracy is the process. You cant have one without the other. It is nonsense to suggest otherwise.

America is a ollection of quasi independent states. But they arent really. The civil war squashed that notion. ALabama eont unilaterally invade Canada.

People who deny democracy never have a better alternative. Nor can they point to a successful society that has rejected democracy.

The process is the thing not the title.

So where in this republic is democracy not the key ingredient ?

A Republic and a Democracy are two things, and not mutually exclusive.

"A republic, based on the Latin phrase res publica ("public affair"), is a state in which political power rests with the public through their representatives—in contrast to a monarchy.[1][2]" (from wikipedia)

So, the US doesn't have a monarchy, the political power rests with "the public" through their representatives.

I'd say the US is loosely a Republic, as the people do get to vote, however the power does not rest with the people through their representatives, it rests with the RICH through THEIR represenatives.

A Democracy is also something very loose in the US.

"Democracy (from Ancient Greek: δημοκρατία, romanized: dēmokratía, dēmos 'people' and kratos 'rule')[1] is a system of government in which state power is vested in the people or the general population of a state."

The power is with "the people"... again, not really, but they do get to vote.

The UK is kind of a Republic, because a lot of the power rests with those who are elected, rather than the Monarch, however the Monarch does have certain powers. But the UK is as much a Democracy as the US (both have FPTP which is, if you look in the dictionary of life, called "shitty democracy")

 

[Captain Caveman]

I see this repeated a lot on this forum. Ive never really understood this point of view and what those stating it are getting at.

It usually gets stated when some undemocratic action needs to be justified. Americans vote on everything. And they value their vote. People who vote are the democratic process.

And that might be the key word. Republic might be the title but democracy is the process. You cant have one without the other. It is nonsense to suggest otherwise.

America is a ollection of quasi independent states. But they arent really. The civil war squashed that notion. ALabama eont unilaterally invade Canada.

People who deny democracy never have a better alternative. Nor can they point to a successful society that has rejected democracy.

The process is the thing not the title.

So where in this republic is democracy not the key ingredient ?

Republic means your head of state is a president.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Slavery is not a local issue. It affects everyone in the country.
Furthermore it is immoral. The slavers were rightly crushed like chaff.

As always, of course, you're speaking from a position of deep ignorance, and lack of standing, with regard to American governance.

Nearly all laws and enforcement in America are supposed to be at the state or local levels, not at the federal level. The federal government is only supposed to have authority over those things that are explicitly delegated to it in the Constitution. That is the point of the Tenth Amendment.

It is up to states and localities to determine what laws they will enact, against what behaviors, and how, within the limits imposed by the Constitution, these laws will be enforced.

If someone commits a murder in New York city, for example, that's a matter for either New York city's government to deal with, or the state of New York. It's at that level, even that the law against murder is to be made, assuming that New York determines that murder is to be illegal. None of it is any of the federal government's business. Theoretically, a state could legalize murder, and it would be the right of that state to do so.

The great men who founded this nation, and wrote our Constitution, placed greater trust in the governments of states and localities to enact and enforce laws in the interests of their people, that in a distance, much-less accountable federal government.

The Confederacy did have a valid point, that within the framework of our Constitution, the federal government was acting illegally in trying to ban slavery nationwide. Until the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified, giving this authority to the federal government, the federal government had no legitimate power to tell states that they could or could not allow slavery.

 

[JLW]

We are a representative democracy. We elect representatives to represent us in local, state and federal government. The constitution sets the parameters of our representative democracy.

SHEESH…how hard is that to understand.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

As always, of course, you're speaking from a position of deep ignorance, and lack of standing, with regard to American governance.

Nearly all laws and enforcement in America are supposed to be at the state or local levels, not at the federal level. The federal government is only supposed to have authority over those things that are explicitly delegated to it in the Constitution. That is the point of the Tenth Amendment.

It is up to states and localities to determine what laws they will enact, against what behaviors, and how, within the limits imposed by the Constitution, these laws will be enforced.

If someone commits a murder in New York city, for example, that's a matter for either New York city's government to deal with, or the state of New York. It's at that level, even that the law against murder is to be made, assuming that New York determines that murder is to be illegal. None of it is any of the federal government's business. Theoretically, a state could legalize murder, and it would be the right of that state to do so.

The great men who founded this nation, and wrote our Constitution, placed greater trust in the governments of states and localities to enact and enforce laws in the interests of their people, that in a distance, much-less accountable federal government.

The Confederacy did have a valid point, that within the framework of our Constitution, the federal government was acting illegally in trying to ban slavery nationwide. Until the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified, giving this authority to the federal government, the federal government had no legitimate power to tell states that they could or could not allow slavery.

I know mormons had problems with black folk. But decent people think slavery is evil. Wherever it is practiced.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I know mormons had problems with black folk. But decent people think slavery is evil. Wherever it is practiced.

As with everything that you think you know about America and how this country is to be governed, everything that you think you know about my religion is pure solid digestive waste from a male bovine.

Perhaps you should stick to discussing topics about which you actually know anything, or at least have some willingness to learn. But then, if you held to that, you'd never be able to post anything about any topic.