The US is a mixture of a Republic and a Democracy. The higher up the power structure you go the more Republic the government becomes.
At your local level you have something that is close to a direct democracy. You can easily contact the local level beurocrats and make your opinion known. This can become harder in a big city where more layers exist between you and the people in charge. Example: if you live in Putnam CT you can easily go to town hall and speak to the mayor. Live in NYC? Good luck seeing the mayor.
Once you get above county level politics the distance between you and your representative in government grows larger and larger, as does your involvement with law making. Further much of our government is designed with agencies of unelected officials who have power granted to them by the lawmaking bodies and executive branches of government. Agencies that are not directly answerable to the people in the way that elected office holders are.
If you want to know where a part of our government falls then you also need to use this graph to answer the question of whether or not we are a democracy or a republic.
The electoral college is still bullshit regardless of the flavor of democracy we employ. It specifically over-represents the worst and most insular of Americans.
So the U.S. is a democracy after all. Good we've cleared that up.
Also, there is no spectrum from democracy to republic. A republic is simply a representative democracy. That doesn't suddenly make it less of a democracy or not a democracy at all. You still elect a representative and the one with the most votes moves on to be your representative. And that representative in turn votes on laws and other subjects. There are even ballot initiatives in the U.S. that are directly elected by the people.
And one more thing you forgot to include: Those agencies that do not have elected officials have officials appointed by elected officials and which will routinely be switched out when the elected official who made the appointment changes, or at the very least the elected official will have the power to name a successor when current person leaves office. Who, or at least what kind of person will be such a successor are often considerations when weighting the options in the position the election covers. Easy example are the potential supreme court nominations which were a topic in this years presidential election.
The electoral college is still bullshit regardless of the flavor of democracy we employ. It specifically over-represents the worst and most insular of Americans.
And let's not forget that the reason it's like this is because America was a shit ton more rural when it was created. It's a system that was just not designed for the modern spectrum of population density.
So the U.S. is a democracy after all. Good we've cleared that up.
No, it's not. It depends where you look. The US is neither a pure democracy nor is it a pure republic. It is a mixture of both. It has been moving closer to a democracy over time but it is not there yet.
It's like an old Ford vehicle that has slowly been having pieces swapped out with Chevy parts. Oh look, it managed to have a Chevy engine and drivetrain swapped into it. Is it still a Ford? Are those bucket seats from a Chevy? Upholstery? Is there a core part that overrides all the modifications that enables one to still identify the vehicle as a Ford or do we make a new name and just call it a Chord? If you drive it to a Ford vs Chevy motorclub fight where do you park?
So the U.S. is a democracy after all. Good we've cleared that up.
No, it's not. It depends where you look. The US is neither a pure democracy nor is it a pure republic. It is a mixture of both. It has been moving closer to a democracy over time but it is not there yet.
It's like an old Ford vehicle that has slowly been having pieces swapped out with Chevy parts. Oh look, it managed to have a Chevy engine and drivetrain swapped into it. Is it still a Ford? Are those bucket seats from a Chevy? Upholstery? Is there a core part that overrides all the modifications that enables one to still identify the vehicle as a Ford or do we make a new name and just call it a Chord? If you drive it to a Ford vs Chevy motorclub fight where do you park?
I guess we're splitting hairs here, but as long as we are I'm gonna toss out the idea that I think our issue is one of first principals.
Given that, I'm gonna ask you both to define the words republic and democracy and let ya both go from there.
The US is neither a pure democracy nor is it a pure republic.
You realize that this is not a dichotomy but that a republic is a form of a democratic state (as opposed to a monarchy, a dictatorship, an oligarchy, etc.)?
Given that, I'm gonna ask you both to define the words republic and democracy and let ya both go from there.
Democracy is a form of government where every eligible citizen has an equal say which is measured by voting with the most popular option being passed and put into practice. There is direct democracy in which citizens directly vote on issues, and representative democracy in which citizens elect other people (representatives) who in turn vote on and/or enact policies on behalf of the people that elected them.
A republic is simply a state who uses representative democracy as its primary form of selecting the people in power (e.g. with a senate, a parliament or a diet). For certain issues also a directly democratic process will be used.
So the U.S. is a democracy after all. Good we've cleared that up.
No, it's not. It depends where you look. The US is neither a pure democracy nor is it a pure republic. It is a mixture of both. It has been moving closer to a democracy over time but it is not there yet.
It's like an old Ford vehicle that has slowly been having pieces swapped out with Chevy parts. Oh look, it managed to have a Chevy engine and drivetrain swapped into it. Is it still a Ford? Are those bucket seats from a Chevy? Upholstery? Is there a core part that overrides all the modifications that enables one to still identify the vehicle as a Ford or do we make a new name and just call it a Chord? If you drive it to a Ford vs Chevy motorclub fight where do you park?
Democracy is a state where rights and sovereignty is collective. Minorities only have the rights that the majority has chosen to allow them to have. A simple majority is all that is needed to change anything.
Republic is a state where rights and sovereignty are individual. Minorities have the same rights as the majority and they can not lose those rights by a simple majority.
The filibuster is a feature of a republic, it would not exist in a democracy.
Example of how even California is a Republic. Remember a few years back when the citizens of California passed a ballot initiative to make same sex marriage illegal? Prop 8 was it in 2008? Under a democracy Prop 8 would have stood as the majority of the people who voted supported it. Because we live in a Republic the individual rights of the minority were protected from the tyranny of the majority.
Both a republic and a democracy can have similar outward appearances. What is on the inside is what counts. It is the protections afforded to the minority members of the body politic that separates the democracy from the republic.
The democrats would have to step up and play hard ball in an election they mostly lost. While we won the popular vote for president, we lost congressional and senate races all over the country. Also, even then I'm not sure hillary would win. There's a lot of states that went overwhelmingly to trump. If you took away the WTA, she might lose worse.
The democrats would have to step up and play hard ball in an election they mostly lost. While we won the popular vote for president, we lost congressional and senate races all over the country. Also, even then I'm not sure hillary would win. There's a lot of states that went overwhelmingly to trump. If you took away the WTA, she might lose worse.
Uhh, no. The article addresses that. Clinton comes out on top 270-267.
The democrats would have to step up and play hard ball in an election they mostly lost. While we won the popular vote for president, we lost congressional and senate races all over the country. Also, even then I'm not sure hillary would win. There's a lot of states that went overwhelmingly to trump. If you took away the WTA, she might lose worse.
Uhh, no. The article addresses that. Clinton comes out on top 270-267.
My quick spitball had Trump at 268 with Clinton at 269 (because Utah). McMullen would have gotten one of Utah's electoral votes.
Democracy is a state where rights and sovereignty is collective. Minorities only have the rights that the majority has chosen to allow them to have. A simple majority is all that is needed to change anything.
Republic is a state where rights and sovereignty are individual. Minorities have the same rights as the majority and they can not lose those rights by a simple majority.
The filibuster is a feature of a republic, it would not exist in a democracy.
Example of how even California is a Republic. Remember a few years back when the citizens of California passed a ballot initiative to make same sex marriage illegal? Prop 8 was it in 2008? Under a democracy Prop 8 would have stood as the majority of the people who voted supported it. Because we live in a Republic the individual rights of the minority were protected from the tyranny of the majority.
Both a republic and a democracy can have similar outward appearances. What is on the inside is what counts. It is the protections afforded to the minority members of the body politic that separates the democracy from the republic.
Your definition appears to be "A republic is a democracy with a constitution" which I would kind of agree with, but also does not do anything to further your claim that the United States is not a democracy, particularly when considering that the election you talk about happened within the United States.
You may disagree, but if you do please explain what exactly makes a republic not a form of democracy, or the United States in particular.
Democracy is a form of government where every eligible citizen has an equal say which is measured by voting with the most popular option being passed and put into practice. There is direct democracy in which citizens directly vote on issues, and representative democracy in which citizens elect other people (representatives) who in turn vote on and/or enact policies on behalf of the people that elected them.
A republic is simply a state who uses representative democracy as its primary form of selecting the people in power (e.g. with a senate, a parliament or a diet). For certain issues also a directly democratic process will be used.
Democracy is a state where rights and sovereignty is collective. Minorities only have the rights that the majority has chosen to allow them to have. A simple majority is all that is needed to change anything.
Republic is a state where rights and sovereignty are individual. Minorities have the same rights as the majority and they can not lose those rights by a simple majority.
See what I mean, your definitions don't line up. You're each arguing using a different set of assumptions. If you could agree on the definitions of these terms I'm sure the original disagreement would disappear.
It's like an old Ford vehicle that has slowly been having pieces swapped out with Chevy parts. Oh look, it managed to have a Chevy engine and drivetrain swapped into it. Is it still a Ford? Are those bucket seats from a Chevy? Upholstery? Is there a core part that overrides all the modifications that enables one to still identify the vehicle as a Ford or do we make a new name and just call it a Chord? If you drive it to a Ford vs Chevy motorclub fight where do you park?
Yes. That's still a Ford, according to the law. And that Core part, in the eyes of the law, is the chassis number.
It's especially popular in California, with their strict smog rules, to get almost completely stripped chassis of pre-cutoff cars that have a VIN attached, because it doesn't matter what parts you put in it, it's still considered whatever make and model that VIN claims it is.
The democrats would have to step up and play hard ball in an election they mostly lost. While we won the popular vote for president, we lost congressional and senate races all over the country. Also, even then I'm not sure hillary would win. There's a lot of states that went overwhelmingly to trump. If you took away the WTA, she might lose worse.
Uhh, no. The article addresses that. Clinton comes out on top 270-267.
My quick spitball had Trump at 268 with Clinton at 269 (because Utah). McMullen would have gotten one of Utah's electoral votes.
Well, you used different math, then. Did you have a reason for doing so?
The democrats would have to step up and play hard ball in an election they mostly lost. While we won the popular vote for president, we lost congressional and senate races all over the country. Also, even then I'm not sure hillary would win. There's a lot of states that went overwhelmingly to trump. If you took away the WTA, she might lose worse.
Uhh, no. The article addresses that. Clinton comes out on top 270-267.
My quick spitball had Trump at 268 with Clinton at 269 (because Utah). McMullen would have gotten one of Utah's electoral votes.
Well, you used different math, then. Did you have a reason for doing so?
In cases of near ties in states with an even number of electors I gave one more to the winner. So, if a state had 16 electors and the votes were 49% and 48% (plus third parties at 3%) I awarded the 49% winner 9 and second place got 7 rather than 8 each.
Democracy is a state where rights and sovereignty is collective. Minorities only have the rights that the majority has chosen to allow them to have. A simple majority is all that is needed to change anything.
Republic is a state where rights and sovereignty are individual. Minorities have the same rights as the majority and they can not lose those rights by a simple majority.
The filibuster is a feature of a republic, it would not exist in a democracy.
Example of how even California is a Republic. Remember a few years back when the citizens of California passed a ballot initiative to make same sex marriage illegal? Prop 8 was it in 2008? Under a democracy Prop 8 would have stood as the majority of the people who voted supported it. Because we live in a Republic the individual rights of the minority were protected from the tyranny of the majority.
Both a republic and a democracy can have similar outward appearances. What is on the inside is what counts. It is the protections afforded to the minority members of the body politic that separates the democracy from the republic.
Your definition appears to be "A republic is a democracy with a constitution" which I would kind of agree with, but also does not do anything to further your claim that the United States is not a democracy, particularly when considering that the election you talk about happened within the United States.
You may disagree, but if you do please explain what exactly makes a republic not a form of democracy, or the United States in particular.
In a democracy Prop 8 would have stood as law as soon as it was passed by a majority of voters. There would be no court challenge. The only way to overturn it would have been another Prop vote requiring a majority of voters.
I can't help but feel that you are looking at the outside while I am describing the inside. Both a man and a woman can wear a dress but the wearing of the dress does not change the fact that one is a man and the other is a woman.
Edit: there are dictatorships that hold what they call elections where the dictator always wins by huge margins. Are those democracies because they allow voting?
In a democracy Prop 8 would have stood as law as soon as it was passed by a majority of voters. There would be no court challenge. The only way to overturn it would have been another Prop vote requiring a majority of voters.
I can't help but feel that you are looking at the outside while I am describing the inside. Both a man and a woman can wear a dress but the wearing of the dress does not change the fact that one is a man and the other is a woman.
Edit: there are dictatorships that hold what they call elections where the dictator always wins by huge margins. Are those democracies because they allow voting?
Your transphobic description aside, it seems to me more that you refuse to look on the inside and seem to be stuck on the idea that direct democracy is the only form of democracy which is simply wrong. If you don't believe that please name a couple other forms of democracy.
And your dictatorship is not a democracy, even if it puts on airs, because it isn't a free and fair election where people actually have a choice.
In a democracy Prop 8 would have stood as law as soon as it was passed by a majority of voters. There would be no court challenge. The only way to overturn it would have been another Prop vote requiring a majority of voters.
I can't help but feel that you are looking at the outside while I am describing the inside. Both a man and a woman can wear a dress but the wearing of the dress does not change the fact that one is a man and the other is a woman.
Edit: there are dictatorships that hold what they call elections where the dictator always wins by huge margins. Are those democracies because they allow voting?
Your transphobic description aside, it seems to me more that you refuse to look on the inside and seem to be stuck on the idea that direct democracy is the only form of democracy which is simply wrong. If you don't believe that please name a couple other forms of democracy.
And your dictatorship is not a democracy, even if it puts on airs, because it isn't a free and fair election where people actually have a choice.
Going to have to agree with Naoza. If we can't agree on the terms we can't have a discussion.
The only distinction I see you making between a republic and a democracy is that a republic has elected representatives. Going by your definition there is no difference of any worth between a democracy and a republic.
Going to have to agree with Naoza. If we can't agree on the terms we can't have a discussion.
The only distinction I see you making between a republic and a democracy is that a republic has elected representatives. Going by your definition there is no difference of any worth between a democracy and a republic.
That's because there is not valuable distinction to be made. A republic is simply one way of implementing democracy. Democracy is the base layer if you will, and what makes it a republic are additional things layered on top of it, but those additives do not change the fact that what policies are implemented is being shaped by elections where every eligible citizen gets to have a choice.
I have repeatedly asked you what distinguishes a republic from a democracy to the point where you can say that a republic is not a democracy. The only thing you have given me is that a republic adds a limitation to things that can be decided through a democratic election. And my response to it is "yes, and?" because that in and of itself does not invalidate the fact that it uses, and in your example used, a directly democratic process to select policy in the first place. It in fact fits perfectly into what I am saying when I explain what a republic is.
I say a republic is inherently a democracy. You say there is an explicit difference that makes them not only separate from each other, but also exclusionary to the point that a republic can not be a democracy. You have yet to explain that difference.
The electoral college is still bullshit regardless of the flavor of democracy we employ. It specifically over-represents the worst and most insular of Americans.
Whoa, hold up. "Worst" is a value judgement and "Insular" is far too broad a brush, and neither of which describes what it ACTUALLY does. Let's deal with facts here: The electoral college over-represents rural states and states with small populations. NOW, are the people in those states often insular? Maybe. But the electoral college doesn't care about their ideals, just how many of them there are.
Across the globe, rural areas are associated with insular and conservative politics. While not a rule on an individual basis, in aggregate they are the worst. It rewards sparsely populated areas with more representation, the very areas with the least tolerance and most bullshit.
The electoral college is still bullshit regardless of the flavor of democracy we employ. It specifically over-represents the worst and most insular of Americans.
Whoa, hold up. "Worst" is a value judgement and "Insular" is far too broad a brush, and neither of which describes what it ACTUALLY does. Let's deal with facts here: The electoral college over-represents rural states and states with small populations. NOW, are the people in those states often insular? Maybe. But the electoral college doesn't care about their ideals, just how many of them there are.
And a lot of the problem with the College is that we capped the House of Representatives at 435 back in 1911, and haven't updated it since despite our population tripling in size.
Hell, look at New York state. The state is losing population, and thus representation. But the city itself is growing so rapidly it can't even adequately house the newcomers.
So the largest city in America, growing faster than it can manage, is losing representation on the national stage.
Hell, look at New York state. The state is losing population, and thus representation. But the city itself is growing so rapidly it can't even adequately house the newcomers.
So the largest city in America, growing faster than it can manage, is losing representation on the national stage.
And a lot of the problem with the College is that we capped the House of Representatives at 435 back in 1911, and haven't updated it since despite our population tripling in size.
And new york has the same percentage of those 435 now as it did then.
If anything the city is or should be gaining representation. That is to say as the city grows and the state shrinks the city makes up a larger portion of the state and therefore has more ability to dictate where more of the fixed number of representation points the state gets. (Though it's a winner take all state so they already had 100% control over that)
Going to have to agree with Naoza. If we can't agree on the terms we can't have a discussion.
The only distinction I see you making between a republic and a democracy is that a republic has elected representatives. Going by your definition there is no difference of any worth between a democracy and a republic.
That's because there is not valuable distinction to be made. A republic is simply one way of implementing democracy.
LOL. If this is a foundation statement for you (as in, you're unwilling to change it), then there is no further that this discussion can go. You're wrong, and the distinction has been well-drawn here, but you refuse to acknowledge it.
You say there is an explicit difference that makes them not only separate from each other, but also exclusionary to the point that a republic can not be a democracy. You have yet to explain that difference.
He did. You just aren't listening. You refuse to acknowledge his explanation as suitable because it does not agree with your premise.
Just because you say something is so doesn't make it so. Continuing to insist on it doesn't make it any more accurate either, despite what half the country seems to think about Trump's "facts." If you're not even going to consider the explanation of the difference between democratic and republican forms of government, then stop asking for it.
Going to have to agree with Naoza. If we can't agree on the terms we can't have a discussion.
The only distinction I see you making between a republic and a democracy is that a republic has elected representatives. Going by your definition there is no difference of any worth between a democracy and a republic.
That's because there is not valuable distinction to be made. A republic is simply one way of implementing democracy.
LOL. If this is a foundation statement for you (as in, you're unwilling to change it), then there is no further that this discussion can go. You're wrong, and the distinction has been well-drawn here, but you refuse to acknowledge it.
You say there is an explicit difference that makes them not only separate from each other, but also exclusionary to the point that a republic can not be a democracy. You have yet to explain that difference.
He did. You just aren't listening. You refuse to acknowledge his explanation as suitable because it does not agree with your premise.
Just because you say something is so doesn't make it so. Continuing to insist on it doesn't make it any more accurate either, despite what half the country seems to think about Trump's "facts." If you're not even going to consider the explanation of the difference between democratic and republican forms of government, then stop asking for it.
Love the ad hominem attack a la "no, he explained it, you are being obtuse". And then you cut out the part where I explain why I find his explanation unsatisfying and pretend I just ignored it. Isn't that a nice form of adding to the debate.
If you are so sure that "democracy" and "republic" are completely incompatible and absolutely exclusionary, then why do you think for example my country starts its constitution with the words "Artikel 1. Österreich ist eine demokratische Republik. Ihr Recht geht vom Volk aus."? (Translation: Austria is a democratic republic. Its law emanates from the people.) Isn't that completely impossible according to you?
Comments
At your local level you have something that is close to a direct democracy. You can easily contact the local level beurocrats and make your opinion known. This can become harder in a big city where more layers exist between you and the people in charge. Example: if you live in Putnam CT you can easily go to town hall and speak to the mayor. Live in NYC? Good luck seeing the mayor.
Once you get above county level politics the distance between you and your representative in government grows larger and larger, as does your involvement with law making. Further much of our government is designed with agencies of unelected officials who have power granted to them by the lawmaking bodies and executive branches of government. Agencies that are not directly answerable to the people in the way that elected office holders are.
The US is like this graph:
Democracy ------------------------------------Republic
If you want to know where a part of our government falls then you also need to use this graph to answer the question of whether or not we are a democracy or a republic.
Local-----------------------------------------------Federal
Also, there is no spectrum from democracy to republic. A republic is simply a representative democracy. That doesn't suddenly make it less of a democracy or not a democracy at all. You still elect a representative and the one with the most votes moves on to be your representative. And that representative in turn votes on laws and other subjects. There are even ballot initiatives in the U.S. that are directly elected by the people.
And one more thing you forgot to include: Those agencies that do not have elected officials have officials appointed by elected officials and which will routinely be switched out when the elected official who made the appointment changes, or at the very least the elected official will have the power to name a successor when current person leaves office. Who, or at least what kind of person will be such a successor are often considerations when weighting the options in the position the election covers. Easy example are the potential supreme court nominations which were a topic in this years presidential election.
It's like an old Ford vehicle that has slowly been having pieces swapped out with Chevy parts. Oh look, it managed to have a Chevy engine and drivetrain swapped into it. Is it still a Ford? Are those bucket seats from a Chevy? Upholstery? Is there a core part that overrides all the modifications that enables one to still identify the vehicle as a Ford or do we make a new name and just call it a Chord? If you drive it to a Ford vs Chevy motorclub fight where do you park?
Given that, I'm gonna ask you both to define the words republic and democracy and let ya both go from there.
A republic is simply a state who uses representative democracy as its primary form of selecting the people in power (e.g. with a senate, a parliament or a diet). For certain issues also a directly democratic process will be used.
Republic is a state where rights and sovereignty are individual. Minorities have the same rights as the majority and they can not lose those rights by a simple majority.
The filibuster is a feature of a republic, it would not exist in a democracy.
Example of how even California is a Republic. Remember a few years back when the citizens of California passed a ballot initiative to make same sex marriage illegal? Prop 8 was it in 2008? Under a democracy Prop 8 would have stood as the majority of the people who voted supported it. Because we live in a Republic the individual rights of the minority were protected from the tyranny of the majority.
Both a republic and a democracy can have similar outward appearances. What is on the inside is what counts. It is the protections afforded to the minority members of the body politic that separates the democracy from the republic.
You may disagree, but if you do please explain what exactly makes a republic not a form of democracy, or the United States in particular.
See what I mean, your definitions don't line up. You're each arguing using a different set of assumptions. If you could agree on the definitions of these terms I'm sure the original disagreement would disappear.
It's especially popular in California, with their strict smog rules, to get almost completely stripped chassis of pre-cutoff cars that have a VIN attached, because it doesn't matter what parts you put in it, it's still considered whatever make and model that VIN claims it is.
I can't help but feel that you are looking at the outside while I am describing the inside. Both a man and a woman can wear a dress but the wearing of the dress does not change the fact that one is a man and the other is a woman.
Edit: there are dictatorships that hold what they call elections where the dictator always wins by huge margins. Are those democracies because they allow voting?
And your dictatorship is not a democracy, even if it puts on airs, because it isn't a free and fair election where people actually have a choice.
The only distinction I see you making between a republic and a democracy is that a republic has elected representatives. Going by your definition there is no difference of any worth between a democracy and a republic.
I have repeatedly asked you what distinguishes a republic from a democracy to the point where you can say that a republic is not a democracy. The only thing you have given me is that a republic adds a limitation to things that can be decided through a democratic election. And my response to it is "yes, and?" because that in and of itself does not invalidate the fact that it uses, and in your example used, a directly democratic process to select policy in the first place. It in fact fits perfectly into what I am saying when I explain what a republic is.
I say a republic is inherently a democracy. You say there is an explicit difference that makes them not only separate from each other, but also exclusionary to the point that a republic can not be a democracy. You have yet to explain that difference.
So the largest city in America, growing faster than it can manage, is losing representation on the national stage.
And new york has the same percentage of those 435 now as it did then.
If anything the city is or should be gaining representation. That is to say as the city grows and the state shrinks the city makes up a larger portion of the state and therefore has more ability to dictate where more of the fixed number of representation points the state gets. (Though it's a winner take all state so they already had 100% control over that)
Just because you say something is so doesn't make it so. Continuing to insist on it doesn't make it any more accurate either, despite what half the country seems to think about Trump's "facts." If you're not even going to consider the explanation of the difference between democratic and republican forms of government, then stop asking for it.
If you are so sure that "democracy" and "republic" are completely incompatible and absolutely exclusionary, then why do you think for example my country starts its constitution with the words "Artikel 1. Österreich ist eine demokratische Republik. Ihr Recht geht vom Volk aus."? (Translation: Austria is a democratic republic. Its law emanates from the people.) Isn't that completely impossible according to you?