Dems, don't let Repubs bamboozle you, America IS a democracy.

[Rumpole]

All hail mob rule.

And a mob is, what?

 

[Rumpole]

I didn't know Chomsky was a republican lol​

Chris Hedges and Noam Chomsky: How the U.S. Became an Oligarchy That Makes War on the Middle Class​

Chris Hedges and Noam Chomsky: How the U.S. Became an Oligarchy That Makes War on the Middle Class - Truthdig

In the first of a two-part conversation, the two intellectuals discuss the shift in the U.S. and U.K. in the late 1970s toward neoliberalism, an ideology that Chomsky (pictured) says claims to increase freedom while actually increasing tyranny.

www.truthdig.com

Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy​

• • Published
    17 April 2014
  
  
  The US is dominated by a rich and powerful elite.
  So concludes a recent study by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin I Page.
  This is not news, you say.
  Perhaps, but the two professors have conducted exhaustive research to try to present data-driven support for this conclusion. Here's how they explain it:
  
  Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
  In English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.
• 
  
  
  
• Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy
  
  
  

My OP wasn't about de facto and practical realities, it was about principles.

Of course there is a growing opinion that AMerica is ostensibly leaning towards oligarchy, and thanks to Citizen's united, that leaning will get worse.

But, officially, it's a democracy. We can elect representatives and senators and a president who will appoint more liberal justices, who will repeal Citizen's united, and then we turn the ship around, the one that is headed for oligarchy, more to a centrist democracy. but, that will take time, the damage has been done and it is tough to repair when the other side doesn't think it needs it.

 

[Rumpole]

Hamilton might not agree, but James Madison does (did), and also others such as Alexis de Tocqueville and British philosopher John Stuart Mill. This guy (JM) is credited with playing a large part in the construction of our US Constitution, right? Wherein the Electoral College was devised to prevent the 'tyranny of the majority', meaning that the larger and more populous states could run roughshod over the smaller ones.

Tyranny of the majority (or tyranny of the masses) is a situation that can result from a system of majority rule, wherein the majority group places its own interests above the interests of a minority group without consideration for the welfare or rights of the minority. In a direct democracy, for example, this form of oppression could involve the majority using the democratic process to shape public policy solely in their own interests, excluding the minority group from the distribution of benefits."
To limit the possibility of a tyranny of the majority in the United States, the framers of the Constitution established a government with checks and balances designed, they claimed, to prevent any one part of the government from becoming too powerful. Additionally, they made it more difficult for Congress to easily ignore the needs of minority groups by requiring the support of a supermajority for major decisions. They also added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution to protect various individual rights of those in minority groups. Further, the framers of the Constitution created the Electoral College system to theoretically prevent presidential candidates from ignoring the needs of less populous states in favor of highly-populated ones. [So, it IS a feature in our Constitution.]

https://www.masterclass.com/articles/tyranny-of-the-majority-explained

So, strictly speaking we are not exactly a democracy, are we? Cuz presidents have been elected without winning the popular vote. But there are good and sufficient reasons why a pure democracy is a bad idea in a nation such as ours. Starting with the observation that there wouldn't have been a United States in the 1st place cuz the smaller states wouldn't have agreed to possibly being ignored when it comes to national policies. Since we do elect our representatives to govern for us, one can make the argument that at least democratic principles are at work here, and none of them have control over the others. Some hate the idea of a president who didn't win the popular vote. Tough shit.

When we say 'western democracy', since none, or at least the vast majority of them are not 'direct' democracies, referring to the word democracy, in modern parlance, in no way, sharp, or form, refers to 'direct democracy'. That is only something that was brought up in the federalist papers. All , or most Western Democracies are representative democracies, where a body of elected officials, similar to our house and senate, enact legislation on behalf of the electorate. When i say 'democracy' I'm just referring to the term in the broadest sense.

Concerns of the 'tyranny of the majority' were NEVER intended to be minority rule. How can one group, just because it is someone smaller, NOT be a 'tyranny' if it imposes it's will on the other? It can't. Tyranny is tyranny. What Hamilton says is that a republican form of government means the majority wins any election. It can't be any other way.

That being said, to offset, the tendency of the majority to bully the minority, which does not refer to minority groups, ONLY the lesser group that didn't win, and that can vary demographically from one election to the other, to counter this tendency, they created a bicameral legislature and three coequal branches of government.

But no way did they mean 'minority should win'. No way, josé.

Therefore, if it happens, given the nature of shifting demographics, that the minority wins in the EC, in terms of the popular vote, it if happens too often, then it is time to repair the system, because they founders NEVER intended on minority rule.

 

[task0778]

My OP wasn't about de facto and practical realities, it was about principles.

Of course there is a growing opinion that AMerica is ostensibly leaning towards oligarchy, and thanks to Citizen's united, that leaning will get worse.

But, officially, it's a democracy. We can elect representatives and senators and a president who will appoint more liberal justices, who will repeal Citizen's united, and then we turn the ship around, the one that is headed for oligarchy, more to a centrist democracy. but, that will take time, the damage has been done and it is tough to repair when the other side doesn't think it needs it.

If you are talking about principles, then how can you say that Citizens United was undemocratic? We are talking about the free speech clause of the First Amendment that should prohibit the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations. Is it right to say that unions can donate money but companies and corporations can't? Why should that decision by the SCOTUS be overturned? On what grounds?

"But in a surprise twist, spending by presidential campaigns has actually decreased since the Supreme Court’s landmark First Amendment decision and the side that spent less won in 2016. So perhaps the better question 10 years on is, did Citizens United matter?"

What’s the Real Legacy of Citizens United?

It's had some effects on the electoral process, but not always in the ways you would guess.

thedispatch.com

The above was written in 2020, 10 years after the CU case was decided. From what I can tell, that ruling hasn't made a difference. And it seems to me that we are no closer to an oligarchy in this country than we were in 2010. The Congress and the Presidency has shifted back and forth between the 2 major parties before and after, so what's the problem?

 

[JWBooth]

And a mob is, what?

three wolves and a lamb making dinner plans

 

[Lord Long Rod]

OP is factually wrong.

 

[task0778]

When we say 'western democracy', since none, or at least the vast majority of them are not 'direct' democracies, referring to the word democracy, in modern parlance, in no way, sharp, or form, refers to 'direct democracy'. That is only something that was brought up in the federalist papers. All , or most Western Democracies are representative democracies, where a body of elected officials, similar to our house and senate, enact legislation on behalf of the electorate. When i say 'democracy' I'm just referring to the term in the broadest sense.

Concerns of the 'tyranny of the majority' were NEVER intended to be minority rule. How can one group, just because it is someone smaller, NOT be a 'tyranny' if it imposes it's will on the other? It can't. Tyranny is tyranny. What Hamilton says is that a republican form of government means the majority wins any election. It can't be any other way.

That being said, to offset, the tendency of the majority to bully the minority, which does not refer to minority groups, ONLY the lesser group that didn't win, and that can vary demographically from one election to the other, to counter this tendency, they created a bicameral legislature and three coequal branches of government.

But no way did they mean 'minority should win'. No way, josé.

Therefore, if it happens, given the nature of shifting demographics, that the minority wins in the EC, in terms of the popular vote, it if happens too often, then it is time to repair the system, because they founders NEVER intended on minority rule.

It isn't minority rule, that is ridiculous. But the minority should have a say in what happens, don't you think? That is what is supposed to happen, if the majority does not have enough votes to enact their policies instead of ramming whatever they want down the throats of the minority because they have 218 votes instead of 217. One fucking vote? You get to do anything you want cuz you got 1 fucking vote? Really?

It's not minority rule, it's minority should have some power and influence. They should not be ignored and shunted aside, as though almost half of the public has no representation. It's not good enough to wait until the next election; there should be some restraint on the majority to work with the minority in the meantime.

 

[toobfreak]

Dems, don't let Repubs bamboozle you, America IS a democracy.​

So in other words, Trampole, Ben Franklin LIED to us???

What we get wrong about Ben Franklin’s ‘a republic, if you can keep it’

Erasing the women of the founding era makes it harder to see women as leaders today.

historynewsnetwork.org

If we were your fantasized democracy of mob rule, there would be no Electoral College.

 

[Richard-H]

The U.S.A. is a Democratic Republic.

 

[struth]

{Caveat: those who are weaned on soundbites, one liners and snarky quips, who have subsequent short attention spans, ignore this post]

This trope has been floundering around the conservative/libertarian circles on the right for some time now, and now Trump
has joined the *RNAD regurgitators.

*Republic, Not A Democracy.

Some Republicans claim that 'proof' is in the pledge: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands..."

Uh, no...I'm sorry to inform you on the right, especially republicans, but "Republic", "Constitutional Republic", "Democracy", "Liberal Democracy", "Western Democracy", etc., these are NOT mutually exclusive terms. I know you think they are, but no, they aren't. They are general terms for basically the same principle, that a Democracy, using the broadest sense of the term, which is the most common use of the term, means a nation of liberty, where free speech, freedom of assembly, everyone of age has the vote, and other assorted virtues, prevail, as opposed to a monarchy or dictatorship or totalitarian non democratic nations.


To wit:

...[a] fundamental maxim of republican government...requires that the sense of the majority should prevail. --Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #22

When Madison/Hamilton (i.e., "Publius") was making a distinction between 'Democracy' and 'Republic', favoring a Republic, he wasn't dissing 'Democracy' in the general sense, he/they were using the term in parochial sense, he was making a distinction between a government where laws are voted on by the electorate, a direct democracy, and one that has laws enacted by a Republic consisting of representative body, each of whose members are elected by popular vote. In America, this is the House of Representatives, Congress, and The Senate, i.e., our bicameral legislature which includes the Vice President when a tie vote needs to be broken. They weren't using the term as it has been used in academia, journalism and public spheres as it has ben used for a very long time.
Now, just in case some of you on the right assert that my Fed #22 quote is out of context, but no, because the meat of the statement stands alone and the context it was written in doesn't really change that fact, so context wasn't necessary.

And what was that context? Hamilton was actually arguing that the principle of equal suffrage between states of different sizes (of populations) contradicts the principle that it is a maxim of a republican form of government that the majority should prevail. Because he was arguing in favor of that principle, the principle, as a principle, it therefore stands alone --not to mention that he states that contrary arguments are 'sophistry'. Clearly, Hamilton favors that the majority should prevail in elections. This IS democracy.

Note that, as any encyclopedia will define, the term 'Republic', is a broad term, and is merely any government that is not a monarchy, where the leaders are either voted in OR appointed. also note that all elections, yes, the many thousands of them from local municipalities on up, excluding only the Vice Pres. and President, are voted via direct democracy. Thus only the VP and the Prez are voted via the EC. (Of course, laws are enacted via the legislature and the Prez but we do have laws, known as 'ballot initiatives' enacted by direct vote in many states). So, we can rightfully state that the vast majority of elections in the United States are done via direct democracy.

There are all types of Republics; there are Constitutional Republics (AKA Democratic Republics aligned with a Constitution) , Islamic Republics, There are Socialist Republics, Calvinist Republics, and so on. But, listening to any Republican, (of late) they will assert that a 'Republic" and a "Democracy' are not the same thing. Let's be clear on this point, A Republic may not include a democracy but a democracy is just about always a Republic, and so, most of the time, these days, when we say 'Republic' we are thinking of a democracy of a certain type, which is defined by whatever charter the Republic is aligned with and usually that is a representative democracy of some kind.

America is a Constitutional [Federal] Republic, AKA "Representative Democracy: AKA "Liberal Democracy" AKA "Western Democracy", noting that Representative Democracy refers to the House of Representatives, and not so much the Electoral College. If we didn't have an EC, America would still be a representative democracy. A number of western democracies, or rather, most of them, elect their president by direct, majority vote, yet are still known as 'representative democracies' precisely because of the fact that they have, like that of the US, an elected body of representatives who propose legislation on behalf of constituents. Now, if anyone is going to claim otherwise, no, I don't buy it, because I've learned this since middle school, read it everywhere I've ever read about politics, heard it spoken on the tongues of pundits, academicians, and leaders of every type since I was a teenager interested in the subject --- we were taught, without exception, "America is a Democracy", and "Democracy is core value in America".

I mean, this stupid RNAD thing, well, it's getting out of hand, and I can clearly see what is driving it: IN FACT, this idea that 'America is not a Democracy' became popular with Republicans right about the time they started losing the popular vote. Gee, what a coincidence, it seems they need to dis democracy in order to feel about about their winning the presidency via a particular fluke in the electoral college system. And don't tell me that not winning the popular vote doesn't bother Republicans. I know it really annoys Trump which is why he lied when he said that he would have won the popular vote had not 3 million illegals voted (in the 2016 election, which was a lie). No, y'all would definitely prefer to win the popular vote. Don't tell me otherwise, I just don't believe you.

It's really gotten a lot of traction now, the RNAD myth, given that in the last few decades Republicans are not winning the popular vote, so now they're trying to poo poo democracy, and doing a lot to diminish it, as a matter of fact, and this trope allows them to feel good about doing it. Republics don't like democracy given that of late, it appears that Democracy doesn't like Republicans. Well, they are bringing it on themselves.

Well, I got bad news for Republicans, either you have a democracy or Fascism. It's one or the other and you really need to decide which side you are on. You can move towards one, and when you do, you are moving away from the other, and that, in my view, describes Trumpism, a move away from democracy towards fascism. The Lincoln Repubs recognize this and have rejected Trumpism hence the "Lincoln Project".

America is all about elections. We have local elections in every municipality in America, thousands of them. We have elections in every state for various state level positions form Governor on down. And then we have elections for the House and the Senate, and finally, The President and Vice president via the electoral college. All sorts of elections, so don't tell me, those of you on the right, and Republicans, that America is "not" a democracy because the BS meter is redlining......

View attachment 772373

Any country that has as many elections as America has is a democracy. No, that it's a 'representative democracy' doesn't alter the statement. Remember, the term 'Democracy' has both broad and parochial usages.

The Trumpist claim that we're 'a republic, not a democracy' is even more dangerous than it sounds

Trumpist Republicans are lately in the habit of repeating this doozy of a notion that the United States of America is “a republic, not a democracy” (RNAD). Often, this comes as a response to ...

www.dailykos.com

Trumpist Republicans are lately in the habit of repeating this doozy of a notion that the United States of America is “a republic, not a democracy” (RNAD). Often, this comes as a response to statements like, “Trumpism is a threat to democracy!” While your first reaction might have been, “Huh?” or, “Are these stone-cold nincompoops out of their ever-loving minds?” the refrain remains a consistent rebuttal from the extreme right.

Responding to RNAD requires understanding what right-wing extremists mean when they say “a republic, not a democracy.” It means they don’t care about democracy. This line of argument provides an ideological justification for some of the most extreme actions being taken by members of the MAGAsphere—actions aimed at thwarting American democracy itself.

BINGO!

A democracy is often a term referring to....

1. A nation where citizens enjoy rights.
2. A nation where citizens enjoy certain freedoms, of speech, free assembly, freedom to work, be self-employed, to achieve one's aims, etc.
3. Freedom of religion, or freedom from religion
4. The right to vote once one is 18.
5. A nation with a government of elected leaders, either directly or indirectly.
6. A Republic, Federal, Constitutional, or otherwise, which is, essentially, a government of elected leaders, indirectly or directly, whose legislation is enacted by the elected representatives constituting a 'representative democracy' generally under the governance of a constitution.

Definition of republic

1a(1): a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president
(2): a political unit (such as a nation) having such a form of government
b(1): a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law
(2): a political unit (such as a nation) having such a form of government

View attachment 772394

AKA 'representative democracy' AKA 'liberal democracies' AKA 'western democracies' AKA or just 'democracy'.

‘America Is a Republic, Not a Democracy’ Is a Dangerous—And Wrong—Argument

Enabling sustained minority rule at the national level is not a feature of our constitutional design, but a perversion of it.

www.theatlantic.com

‘America Is a Republic, Not a Democracy’ Is a Dangerous—And Wrong—Argument
Enabling sustained minority rule at the national level is not a feature of our constitutional design, but a perversion of it.


And it so states right on the Government's own website:

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/lesson-plans/Government_and_You_handouts.pdf

Democracy in the United States.

The United States is a representative democracy. This means that our government is elected by citizens. Here, citizens vote for their government officials. These officials represent the citizens’ ideas and concerns in government. Voting is one way to participate in our democracy. Citizens can also contact their officials when they want to support or change a law. Voting in an election and contacting our elected officials are two ways that Americans can participate in their democracy.

Democrats, do not let Republicans bamboozle anyone on this point, America IS a democracy. Yes, there are times when it might be in doubt, but in principle, though our democracy is far from perfect, so with all of it's flaws, America is a Democracy.

You literally quoted Hamilton referring to our Govt as a Republican Govt....I will just leave it at.

Wow

 

[Mac-7]

{Caveat: those who are weaned on soundbites, one liners and snarky quips, who have subsequent short attention spans, ignore this post]

This trope has been floundering around the conservative/libertarian circles on the right for some time now, and now Trump
has joined the *RNAD regurgitators.

*Republic, Not A Democracy.

Some Republicans claim that 'proof' is in the pledge: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands..."

Uh, no...I'm sorry to inform you on the right, especially republicans, but "Republic", "Constitutional Republic", "Democracy", "Liberal Democracy", "Western Democracy", etc., these are NOT mutually exclusive terms. I know you think they are, but no, they aren't. They are general terms for basically the same principle, that a Democracy, using the broadest sense of the term, which is the most common use of the term, means a nation of liberty, where free speech, freedom of assembly, everyone of age has the vote, and other assorted virtues, prevail, as opposed to a monarchy or dictatorship or totalitarian non democratic nations.


To wit:

...[a] fundamental maxim of republican government...requires that the sense of the majority should prevail. --Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #22

When Madison/Hamilton (i.e., "Publius") was making a distinction between 'Democracy' and 'Republic', favoring a Republic, he wasn't dissing 'Democracy' in the general sense, he/they were using the term in parochial sense, he was making a distinction between a government where laws are voted on by the electorate, a direct democracy, and one that has laws enacted by a Republic consisting of representative body, each of whose members are elected by popular vote. In America, this is the House of Representatives, Congress, and The Senate, i.e., our bicameral legislature which includes the Vice President when a tie vote needs to be broken. They weren't using the term as it has been used in academia, journalism and public spheres as it has ben used for a very long time.
Now, just in case some of you on the right assert that my Fed #22 quote is out of context, but no, because the meat of the statement stands alone and the context it was written in doesn't really change that fact, so context wasn't necessary.

And what was that context? Hamilton was actually arguing that the principle of equal suffrage between states of different sizes (of populations) contradicts the principle that it is a maxim of a republican form of government that the majority should prevail. Because he was arguing in favor of that principle, the principle, as a principle, it therefore stands alone --not to mention that he states that contrary arguments are 'sophistry'. Clearly, Hamilton favors that the majority should prevail in elections. This IS democracy.

Note that, as any encyclopedia will define, the term 'Republic', is a broad term, and is merely any government that is not a monarchy, where the leaders are either voted in OR appointed. also note that all elections, yes, the many thousands of them from local municipalities on up, excluding only the Vice Pres. and President, are voted via direct democracy. Thus only the VP and the Prez are voted via the EC. (Of course, laws are enacted via the legislature and the Prez but we do have laws, known as 'ballot initiatives' enacted by direct vote in many states). So, we can rightfully state that the vast majority of elections in the United States are done via direct democracy.

There are all types of Republics; there are Constitutional Republics (AKA Democratic Republics aligned with a Constitution) , Islamic Republics, There are Socialist Republics, Calvinist Republics, and so on. But, listening to any Republican, (of late) they will assert that a 'Republic" and a "Democracy' are not the same thing. Let's be clear on this point, A Republic may not include a democracy but a democracy is just about always a Republic, and so, most of the time, these days, when we say 'Republic' we are thinking of a democracy of a certain type, which is defined by whatever charter the Republic is aligned with and usually that is a representative democracy of some kind.

America is a Constitutional [Federal] Republic, AKA "Representative Democracy: AKA "Liberal Democracy" AKA "Western Democracy", noting that Representative Democracy refers to the House of Representatives, and not so much the Electoral College. If we didn't have an EC, America would still be a representative democracy. A number of western democracies, or rather, most of them, elect their president by direct, majority vote, yet are still known as 'representative democracies' precisely because of the fact that they have, like that of the US, an elected body of representatives who propose legislation on behalf of constituents. Now, if anyone is going to claim otherwise, no, I don't buy it, because I've learned this since middle school, read it everywhere I've ever read about politics, heard it spoken on the tongues of pundits, academicians, and leaders of every type since I was a teenager interested in the subject --- we were taught, without exception, "America is a Democracy", and "Democracy is core value in America".

I mean, this stupid RNAD thing, well, it's getting out of hand, and I can clearly see what is driving it: IN FACT, this idea that 'America is not a Democracy' became popular with Republicans right about the time they started losing the popular vote. Gee, what a coincidence, it seems they need to dis democracy in order to feel about about their winning the presidency via a particular fluke in the electoral college system. And don't tell me that not winning the popular vote doesn't bother Republicans. I know it really annoys Trump which is why he lied when he said that he would have won the popular vote had not 3 million illegals voted (in the 2016 election, which was a lie). No, y'all would definitely prefer to win the popular vote. Don't tell me otherwise, I just don't believe you.

It's really gotten a lot of traction now, the RNAD myth, given that in the last few decades Republicans are not winning the popular vote, so now they're trying to poo poo democracy, and doing a lot to diminish it, as a matter of fact, and this trope allows them to feel good about doing it. Republics don't like democracy given that of late, it appears that Democracy doesn't like Republicans. Well, they are bringing it on themselves.

Well, I got bad news for Republicans, either you have a democracy or Fascism. It's one or the other and you really need to decide which side you are on. You can move towards one, and when you do, you are moving away from the other, and that, in my view, describes Trumpism, a move away from democracy towards fascism. The Lincoln Repubs recognize this and have rejected Trumpism hence the "Lincoln Project".

America is all about elections. We have local elections in every municipality in America, thousands of them. We have elections in every state for various state level positions form Governor on down. And then we have elections for the House and the Senate, and finally, The President and Vice president via the electoral college. All sorts of elections, so don't tell me, those of you on the right, and Republicans, that America is "not" a democracy because the BS meter is redlining......

View attachment 772373

Any country that has as many elections as America has is a democracy. No, that it's a 'representative democracy' doesn't alter the statement. Remember, the term 'Democracy' has both broad and parochial usages.

The Trumpist claim that we're 'a republic, not a democracy' is even more dangerous than it sounds

Trumpist Republicans are lately in the habit of repeating this doozy of a notion that the United States of America is “a republic, not a democracy” (RNAD). Often, this comes as a response to ...

www.dailykos.com

Trumpist Republicans are lately in the habit of repeating this doozy of a notion that the United States of America is “a republic, not a democracy” (RNAD). Often, this comes as a response to statements like, “Trumpism is a threat to democracy!” While your first reaction might have been, “Huh?” or, “Are these stone-cold nincompoops out of their ever-loving minds?” the refrain remains a consistent rebuttal from the extreme right.

Responding to RNAD requires understanding what right-wing extremists mean when they say “a republic, not a democracy.” It means they don’t care about democracy. This line of argument provides an ideological justification for some of the most extreme actions being taken by members of the MAGAsphere—actions aimed at thwarting American democracy itself.

BINGO!

A democracy is often a term referring to....

1. A nation where citizens enjoy rights.
2. A nation where citizens enjoy certain freedoms, of speech, free assembly, freedom to work, be self-employed, to achieve one's aims, etc.
3. Freedom of religion, or freedom from religion
4. The right to vote once one is 18.
5. A nation with a government of elected leaders, either directly or indirectly.
6. A Republic, Federal, Constitutional, or otherwise, which is, essentially, a government of elected leaders, indirectly or directly, whose legislation is enacted by the elected representatives constituting a 'representative democracy' generally under the governance of a constitution.

Definition of republic

1a(1): a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president
(2): a political unit (such as a nation) having such a form of government
b(1): a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law
(2): a political unit (such as a nation) having such a form of government

View attachment 772394

AKA 'representative democracy' AKA 'liberal democracies' AKA 'western democracies' AKA or just 'democracy'.

‘America Is a Republic, Not a Democracy’ Is a Dangerous—And Wrong—Argument

Enabling sustained minority rule at the national level is not a feature of our constitutional design, but a perversion of it.

www.theatlantic.com

‘America Is a Republic, Not a Democracy’ Is a Dangerous—And Wrong—Argument
Enabling sustained minority rule at the national level is not a feature of our constitutional design, but a perversion of it.


And it so states right on the Government's own website:

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/lesson-plans/Government_and_You_handouts.pdf

Democracy in the United States.

The United States is a representative democracy. This means that our government is elected by citizens. Here, citizens vote for their government officials. These officials represent the citizens’ ideas and concerns in government. Voting is one way to participate in our democracy. Citizens can also contact their officials when they want to support or change a law. Voting in an election and contacting our elected officials are two ways that Americans can participate in their democracy.

Democrats, do not let Republicans bamboozle anyone on this point, America IS a democracy. Yes, there are times when it might be in doubt, but in principle, though our democracy is far from perfect, so with all of it's flaws, America is a Democracy.

Wow!

You did serious damage to the bandwidth with that screed

We are a republic with individual rights granted by the Constitution

 

[Rumpole]

Wow!

You did serious damage to the bandwidth with that screed

We are a republic with individual rights granted by the Constitution

The terms, 'Republic, Democracy' are not mutually exclusive terms, insofar as that the more common use of the term 'Democracy' is in the broader sense of the word, i.,e 'western democracies' which is to say, a nation of elected leaders (of which we are one) 'with the consent of the governed' as opposed to a Monarchy or Totalitarian society.

Now, regarding 'damage', no, every word in the OP has relevance to and underscores my point. Try giving it a read, that is, if you are serious about the subject. Life is a nuanced affair, and no one liner can adequately enable you to reach the truth. Reading is a good thing. Give it a shot.

 

[Rumpole]

The U.S.A. is a Democratic Republic.

You literally quoted Hamilton referring to our Govt as a Republican Govt....I will just leave it at.

Wow

Well, did you actually read the quote? it says:

.[a] fundamental maxim of republican government...requires that the sense of the majority should prevail. -


It requires that the sense of the majority should prevail.

That IS a 'democracy' by definition, and hence my overriding point that 'Republic and Democracy are not mutually exclusive terms.

 

[Rumpole]

It isn't minority rule, that is ridiculous. But the minority should have a say in what happens, don't you think?

But of course!

That is what is supposed to happen, if the majority does not have enough votes to enact their policies instead of ramming whatever they want down the throats of the minority because they have 218 votes instead of 217. One fucking vote? You get to do anything you want cuz you got 1 fucking vote? Really?

Well, should the lesser vote win? Either way, you can say 'Really?' with equal force. But the line has to be set, somewhere, which allows the inevitable one vote win, on occasion. But each of those electoral votes represents quite a few thousand people, so don't forget that point.

It's not minority rule, it's minority should have some power and influence.

And they do, in the Senate via the filibuster rule, which is not in the constitution, we have given the minority far more power than the constitution has granted. Moreover, in RI, which has two senators and fewer people than a small city in CA, CA, has two senators with 39 million people. Hamilton was against this concept, it seems to me when I read fed #22. Dems, with 50 senators in the Senate, have 40 million more constituents than Repubs 50 in the Senate. The minority in America has a much stronger voice than in most western democracies.

They should not be ignored and shunted aside, as though almost half of the public has no representation. It's not good enough to wait until the next election; there should be some restraint on the majority to work with the minority in the meantime.

Indeed, they are not. See above point on the filibuster and Senatorial demographics.

 

[struth]

Well, did you actually read the quote? it says:

.[a] fundamental maxim of republican government...requires that the sense of the majority should prevail. -


It requires that the sense of the majority should prevail.

That IS a 'democracy' by definition, and hence my overriding point that 'Republic and Democracy are not mutually exclusive terms.

haha yes the sense…geez man are words hard for you?

what makes us a republic is that we have a representative democracy, people don’t vote on every issue, we have representatives, moreover we have a series of checks and balance to protect from the tyranny of the majority that a democracy could give. With that said we need the sense that the majority rules and the people elect their representatives so that the few don’t rule

a democracy is not defined by “the sense that the majority…”

 

[task0778]

Well, should the lesser vote win?

No, they shouldn't. In principle, both parties should be able and willing to honorably negotiate with the other party so that together they can arrive at a compromise and reach the threshold of enough votes to pass legislation. In theory, at least the minority has some influence, which is the way it is supposed to be. As opposed to the majority party doing whatever the hell they want to. If they have enough votes (super majority), fine. That was the people's choice, so be it.

OTOH, obstruction by the minority party for political purposes is no less damaging than the tyranny of the majority IMHO. Sometimes the majority party wants to enact laws that the minority party simply cannot support. So be it, since the people did not vote in a super majority then then legislation gets shit-canned if no agreement can be reached. IMHO, the issue then should fall to the individual states to decide what their constituents want to happen. And if the voters disapprove of the obstruction at the federal level then they can vote out the obstructionists in the next election.

 

[Rumpole]

No, they shouldn't. In principle, both parties should be able and willing to honorably negotiate with the other party so that together they can arrive at a compromise and reach the threshold of enough votes to pass legislation. In theory, at least the minority has some influence, which is the way it is supposed to be. As opposed to the majority party doing whatever the hell they want to. If they have enough votes (super majority), fine. That was the people's choice, so be it.

OTOH, obstruction by the minority party for political purposes is no less damaging than the tyranny of the majority IMHO. Sometimes the majority party wants to enact laws that the minority party simply cannot support. So be it, since the people did not vote in a super majority then then legislation gets shit-canned if no agreement can be reached. IMHO, the issue then should fall to the individual states to decide what their constituents want to happen. And if the voters disapprove of the obstruction at the federal level then they can vote out the obstructionists in the next election.

I can't find fault with your argument. I would add, too, that democracy, majority rule with input from the minority, was the design, (and as you've commented) and I believe what we have now, with the filibuster and the fact that 50 Dem senator's constituents are some 40,000,000 more than 50 Repub constituents (some friends and I once did an actual state by state count), the minority now has more power than the constitution ever granted.

 

[Rumpole]

haha yes the sense…geez man are words hard for you?

what makes us a republic is that we have a representative democracy, people don’t vote on every issue, we have representatives, moreover we have a series of checks and balance to protect from the tyranny of the majority that a democracy could give. With that said we need the sense that the majority rules and the people elect their representatives so that the few don’t rule

a democracy is not defined by “the sense that the majority…”

'the sense that the majority should prevail'. That is an aspect of democracy, but it's not the entirety of it, using the term in the broadest sense, the salient point being that Republic and Democracy are not mutually exclusive terms.

 

[struth]

'the sense that the majority should prevail'. That is an aspect of democracy, but it's not the entirety of it, using the term in the broadest sense, the salient point being that Republic and Democracy are not mutually exclusive terms.

yes it’s an aspect…our republic depends on an aspect of democracy

 

[Pellinore]

{Caveat: those who are weaned on soundbites, one liners and snarky quips, who have subsequent short attention spans, ignore this post]

This trope has been floundering around the conservative/libertarian circles on the right for some time now, and now Trump
has joined the *RNAD regurgitators.

*Republic, Not A Democracy.

Some Republicans claim that 'proof' is in the pledge: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands..."

Uh, no...I'm sorry to inform you on the right, especially republicans, but "Republic", "Constitutional Republic", "Democracy", "Liberal Democracy", "Western Democracy", etc., these are NOT mutually exclusive terms. I know you think they are, but no, they aren't. They are general terms for basically the same principle, that a Democracy, using the broadest sense of the term, which is the most common use of the term, means a nation of liberty, where free speech, freedom of assembly, everyone of age has the vote, and other assorted virtues, prevail, as opposed to a monarchy or dictatorship or totalitarian non democratic nations.


To wit:

...[a] fundamental maxim of republican government...requires that the sense of the majority should prevail. --Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #22

When Madison/Hamilton (i.e., "Publius") was making a distinction between 'Democracy' and 'Republic', favoring a Republic, he wasn't dissing 'Democracy' in the general sense, he/they were using the term in parochial sense, he was making a distinction between a government where laws are voted on by the electorate, a direct democracy, and one that has laws enacted by a Republic consisting of representative body, each of whose members are elected by popular vote. In America, this is the House of Representatives, Congress, and The Senate, i.e., our bicameral legislature which includes the Vice President when a tie vote needs to be broken. They weren't using the term as it has been used in academia, journalism and public spheres as it has ben used for a very long time.
Now, just in case some of you on the right assert that my Fed #22 quote is out of context, but no, because the meat of the statement stands alone and the context it was written in doesn't really change that fact, so context wasn't necessary.

And what was that context? Hamilton was actually arguing that the principle of equal suffrage between states of different sizes (of populations) contradicts the principle that it is a maxim of a republican form of government that the majority should prevail. Because he was arguing in favor of that principle, the principle, as a principle, it therefore stands alone --not to mention that he states that contrary arguments are 'sophistry'. Clearly, Hamilton favors that the majority should prevail in elections. This IS democracy.

Note that, as any encyclopedia will define, the term 'Republic', is a broad term, and is merely any government that is not a monarchy, where the leaders are either voted in OR appointed. also note that all elections, yes, the many thousands of them from local municipalities on up, excluding only the Vice Pres. and President, are voted via direct democracy. Thus only the VP and the Prez are voted via the EC. (Of course, laws are enacted via the legislature and the Prez but we do have laws, known as 'ballot initiatives' enacted by direct vote in many states). So, we can rightfully state that the vast majority of elections in the United States are done via direct democracy.

There are all types of Republics; there are Constitutional Republics (AKA Democratic Republics aligned with a Constitution) , Islamic Republics, There are Socialist Republics, Calvinist Republics, and so on. But, listening to any Republican, (of late) they will assert that a 'Republic" and a "Democracy' are not the same thing. Let's be clear on this point, A Republic may not include a democracy but a democracy is just about always a Republic, and so, most of the time, these days, when we say 'Republic' we are thinking of a democracy of a certain type, which is defined by whatever charter the Republic is aligned with and usually that is a representative democracy of some kind.

America is a Constitutional [Federal] Republic, AKA "Representative Democracy: AKA "Liberal Democracy" AKA "Western Democracy", noting that Representative Democracy refers to the House of Representatives, and not so much the Electoral College. If we didn't have an EC, America would still be a representative democracy. A number of western democracies, or rather, most of them, elect their president by direct, majority vote, yet are still known as 'representative democracies' precisely because of the fact that they have, like that of the US, an elected body of representatives who propose legislation on behalf of constituents. Now, if anyone is going to claim otherwise, no, I don't buy it, because I've learned this since middle school, read it everywhere I've ever read about politics, heard it spoken on the tongues of pundits, academicians, and leaders of every type since I was a teenager interested in the subject --- we were taught, without exception, "America is a Democracy", and "Democracy is core value in America".

I mean, this stupid RNAD thing, well, it's getting out of hand, and I can clearly see what is driving it: IN FACT, this idea that 'America is not a Democracy' became popular with Republicans right about the time they started losing the popular vote. Gee, what a coincidence, it seems they need to dis democracy in order to feel about about their winning the presidency via a particular fluke in the electoral college system. And don't tell me that not winning the popular vote doesn't bother Republicans. I know it really annoys Trump which is why he lied when he said that he would have won the popular vote had not 3 million illegals voted (in the 2016 election, which was a lie). No, y'all would definitely prefer to win the popular vote. Don't tell me otherwise, I just don't believe you.

It's really gotten a lot of traction now, the RNAD myth, given that in the last few decades Republicans are not winning the popular vote, so now they're trying to poo poo democracy, and doing a lot to diminish it, as a matter of fact, and this trope allows them to feel good about doing it. Republics don't like democracy given that of late, it appears that Democracy doesn't like Republicans. Well, they are bringing it on themselves.

Well, I got bad news for Republicans, either you have a democracy or Fascism. It's one or the other and you really need to decide which side you are on. You can move towards one, and when you do, you are moving away from the other, and that, in my view, describes Trumpism, a move away from democracy towards fascism. The Lincoln Repubs recognize this and have rejected Trumpism hence the "Lincoln Project".

America is all about elections. We have local elections in every municipality in America, thousands of them. We have elections in every state for various state level positions form Governor on down. And then we have elections for the House and the Senate, and finally, The President and Vice president via the electoral college. All sorts of elections, so don't tell me, those of you on the right, and Republicans, that America is "not" a democracy because the BS meter is redlining......

View attachment 772373

Any country that has as many elections as America has is a democracy. No, that it's a 'representative democracy' doesn't alter the statement. Remember, the term 'Democracy' has both broad and parochial usages.

The Trumpist claim that we're 'a republic, not a democracy' is even more dangerous than it sounds

Trumpist Republicans are lately in the habit of repeating this doozy of a notion that the United States of America is “a republic, not a democracy” (RNAD). Often, this comes as a response to ...

www.dailykos.com

Trumpist Republicans are lately in the habit of repeating this doozy of a notion that the United States of America is “a republic, not a democracy” (RNAD). Often, this comes as a response to statements like, “Trumpism is a threat to democracy!” While your first reaction might have been, “Huh?” or, “Are these stone-cold nincompoops out of their ever-loving minds?” the refrain remains a consistent rebuttal from the extreme right.

Responding to RNAD requires understanding what right-wing extremists mean when they say “a republic, not a democracy.” It means they don’t care about democracy. This line of argument provides an ideological justification for some of the most extreme actions being taken by members of the MAGAsphere—actions aimed at thwarting American democracy itself.

BINGO!

A democracy is often a term referring to....

1. A nation where citizens enjoy rights.
2. A nation where citizens enjoy certain freedoms, of speech, free assembly, freedom to work, be self-employed, to achieve one's aims, etc.
3. Freedom of religion, or freedom from religion
4. The right to vote once one is 18.
5. A nation with a government of elected leaders, either directly or indirectly.
6. A Republic, Federal, Constitutional, or otherwise, which is, essentially, a government of elected leaders, indirectly or directly, whose legislation is enacted by the elected representatives constituting a 'representative democracy' generally under the governance of a constitution.

Definition of republic

1a(1): a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president
(2): a political unit (such as a nation) having such a form of government
b(1): a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law
(2): a political unit (such as a nation) having such a form of government

View attachment 772394

AKA 'representative democracy' AKA 'liberal democracies' AKA 'western democracies' AKA or just 'democracy'.

‘America Is a Republic, Not a Democracy’ Is a Dangerous—And Wrong—Argument

Enabling sustained minority rule at the national level is not a feature of our constitutional design, but a perversion of it.

www.theatlantic.com

‘America Is a Republic, Not a Democracy’ Is a Dangerous—And Wrong—Argument
Enabling sustained minority rule at the national level is not a feature of our constitutional design, but a perversion of it.


And it so states right on the Government's own website:

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/lesson-plans/Government_and_You_handouts.pdf

Democracy in the United States.

The United States is a representative democracy. This means that our government is elected by citizens. Here, citizens vote for their government officials. These officials represent the citizens’ ideas and concerns in government. Voting is one way to participate in our democracy. Citizens can also contact their officials when they want to support or change a law. Voting in an election and contacting our elected officials are two ways that Americans can participate in their democracy.

Democrats, do not let Republicans bamboozle anyone on this point, America IS a democracy. Yes, there are times when it might be in doubt, but in principle, though our democracy is far from perfect, so with all of it's flaws, America is a Democracy.

The main complaint I have about this OP is that it is too long. I've studied history and politics all my life, and even my eyes were glazing over by about paragraph three.

We are a republic, obviously. Republic literally means "public thing," and it is as opposed to a monarchy or dictatorship where all of the government belongs to the leader. In a republic, different people are in charge of different parts of the government. That is us.

We are also a democracy. "Demos" is from the Greek for people"; it means that the power to make change in the society lies with the people. This is in contrast to an autocracy (one person), a theocracy (the church), and a whole bunch of other -ocracies. That is also us.

Specifically, we are a representative democracy, meaning each department (in our case, state or district) chooses representatives (Senators or Reps) to go to the capital city and make the decisions in line with our values. This is in contrast to a direct (or pure, or Athenian) democracy, where everybody shows up to vote on every proposal, which is obviously impractical in a nation of 330 million people.

These days, the terms "republic" and "representative democracy" are practically synonyms. It would be hard to design a government that is one without also being the other.

It does send up a red flag for me to see people claim with such vigor that we are not a democracy, because of how easy that line of argument is to chip away at the tenets of that democracy, and move us closer to one person making all the choices.

We are both a republic and (as of now) a democracy.