People here seem really stuck on there being a discrepancy between the definitions of democracy and republic Steven and I have. To me there is no discrepancy. Steve's definitions perfectly fits into my definitions. The issue is that Steve appears to only acknowledge direct democracies as democracy and leaves out the idea of a representative democracy altogether. And somehow, even though it is a fact that republics such as the United States or Austria use fair and open elections to not only decide on representatives of government but also occasionally directly on policy (which Steve himself brought up), they are not democracies. That is the point I can't wrap my head around.
This is a beautiful semantic argument, let me ugly it up by asking: what system is the one that should be in place? Regardless of what particular nit-picks about what the US currently does, what is the more just model: a proportional one, where the popular vote determines president, or the FPTP-style model with discrete electoral college votes? I could see arguments for either model, but I lean towards the former.
Absolute monarchy - a form of government where the monarch rules unhindered, i.e., without any laws, constitution or legally organized opposition.
Anarchy - a condition of lawlessness or political disorder brought about by the absence of governmental authority.
Authoritarian - a form of government in which state authority is imposed onto many aspects of citizens' lives.
Commonwealth - a nation, state or other political entity founded on law and united by a compact of the people for the common good.
Communist - a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single -- often authoritarian -- party holds power; state controls are imposed with the elimination of private ownership of property or capital while claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people (i.e., a classless society).
Confederacy (Confederation) - a union by compact or treaty between states, provinces or territories that creates a central government with limited powers; the constituent entities retain supreme authority over all matters except those delegated to the central government.
Constitutional - a government by or operating under an authoritative document (constitution) that sets forth the system of fundamental laws and principles that determines the nature, functions and limits of that government.
Constitutional democracy - a form of government in which the sovereign power of the people is spelled out in a governing constitution.
Constitutional monarchy - a system of government in which a monarch is guided by a constitution whereby his/her rights, duties, and responsibilities are spelled out in written law or by custom.
Democracy - a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but which is usually exercised indirectly through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed.
Democratic republic - a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
Dictatorship - a form of government in which a ruler or small clique wield absolute power (not restricted by a constitution or laws).
Ecclesiastical - a government administrated by a church.
Emirate - similar to a monarchy or sultanate, a government in which the supreme power is in the hands of an emir (the ruler of a Muslim state); the emir may be an absolute overlord or a sovereign with constitutionally limited authority.
Federal (Federation) - a form of government in which sovereign power is formally divided -- usually by means of a constitution -- between a central authority and a number of constituent regions (states, colonies or provinces) so that each region retains some management of its internal affairs; differs from a confederacy in that the central government exerts influence directly upon both individuals as well as upon the regional units.
Federal republic - a state in which the powers of the central government are restricted and in which the component parts (states, colonies, or provinces) retain a degree of self-government; ultimate sovereign power rests with the voters who chose their governmental representatives.
Islamic republic - a particular form of government adopted by some Muslim states; although such a state is, in theory, a theocracy, it remains a republic, but its laws are required to be compatible with the laws of Islam.
Maoism - the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism developed in China by Mao Zedong (Mao Tse-tung), which states that a continuous revolution is necessary if the leaders of a communist state are to keep in touch with the people.
Marxism - the political, economic and social principles espoused by 19th century economist Karl Marx; he viewed the struggle of workers as a progression of historical forces that would proceed from a class struggle of the proletariat (workers) exploited by capitalists (business owners), to a socialist "dictatorship of the proletariat," to, finally, a classless society -- Communism.
Marxism-Leninism - an expanded form of communism developed by Vladimir Lenin from doctrines of Karl Marx; Lenin saw imperialism as the final stage of capitalism and shifted the focus of workers' struggle from developed to underdeveloped countries.
Monarchy - a government in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of a monarch who reigns over a state or territory, usually for life and by hereditary right; the monarch may be either a sole absolute ruler or a sovereign - such as a king, queen or prince - with constitutionally limited authority.
Oligarchy - a government in which control is exercised by a small group of individuals whose authority generally is based on wealth or power.
Parliamentary democracy - a political system in which the legislature (parliament) selects the government - a prime minister, premier or chancellor along with the cabinet ministers - according to party strength as expressed in elections; by this system, the government acquires a dual responsibility: to the people as well as to the parliament.
Parliamentary government (Cabinet-Parliamentary government) - a government in which members of an executive branch (the cabinet and its leader - a prime minister, premier or chancellor) are nominated to their positions by a legislature or parliament, and are directly responsible to it; this type of government can be dissolved at will by the parliament (legislature) by means of a no-confidence vote or the leader of the cabinet may dissolve the parliament if it can no longer function.
Parliamentary monarchy - a state headed by a monarch who is not actively involved in policy formation or implementation (i.e., the exercise of sovereign powers by a monarch in a ceremonial capacity); true governmental leadership is carried out by a cabinet and its head - a prime minister, premier or chancellor - who are drawn from a legislature (parliament).
Presidential - a system of government where the executive branch exists separately from a legislature (to which it is generally not accountable).
Republic - a representative democracy in which the people's elected deputies (representatives), not the people themselves, vote on legislation.
Socialism - a government in which the means of planning, producing and distributing goods is controlled by a central government that theoretically seeks a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor; in actuality, most socialist governments have ended up being no more than dictatorships over workers by a ruling elite.
Sultanate - similar to a monarchy, a government in which the supreme power is in the hands of a sultan (the head of a Muslim state); the sultan may be an absolute ruler or a sovereign with constitutionally limited authority.
Theocracy - a form of government in which a Deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the Deity's laws are interpreted by ecclesiastical authorities (bishops, mullahs, etc.); a government subject to religious authority.
Totalitarian - a government that seeks to subordinate the individual to the state by controlling not only all political and economic matters, but also the attitudes, values and beliefs of its population.
That wasn't an ad hominem attack as she did not attack your character or personal traits. She accurately described the conversation.
The issue here is that you began the debate with a false premise and a bit of a fallacy of definition vis a vis your inaccurate/conflated/poorly delineated definitions of republic, democracy, and democratic republic. While these terms do relate to one another, they are not synonymous.
That wasn't an ad hominem attack as she did not attack your character or personal traits. She accurately described the conversation.
The issue here is that you began the debate with a false premise and a bit of a fallacy of definition vis a vis your inaccurate/conflated/poorly delineated definitions of republic, democracy, and democratic republic. While these terms do relate to one another, they are not synonymous.
I see that this is a useful discussion to have though, because I've definitely seen them used interchangeably in common parlance and I'd really just never thought about it enough to form a personal opinion, I just wish it was a bit friendlier.
I didn't pick up on a lack of friendliness. It was just a discussion. As to forming an opinion as to the meaning of words, that seems an odd concept to me for words that aren't currently evolving within the vernacular. By and large, words and long standing political theories are already clearly defined. One could debate what nations employ which structure(s) and why, but the meanings of these terms are well defined, as many stated far earlier in the conversation. Nuri pointed out that you were refuting the definitions, and you were. That isn't unfriendly, IMO, just accurate.
I didn't pick up on a lack of friendliness. It was just a discussion. As to forming an opinion as to the meaning of words, that seems an odd concept to me for words that aren't currently evolving within the vernacular. By and large, words and long standing political theories are already clearly defined. One could debate what nations employ which structure(s) and why, but the meanings of these terms are well defined, as many stated far earlier in the conversation. Nuri pointed out that you were refuting the definitions, and you were. That isn't unfriendly, IMO, just accurate.
To be clear, I have no horse in this race. I only asked both Chaos and Steve to define those words so they could stop talking past each other.
As to an opinion on words let me try and elaborate. I've observed people using democracy and republic basically interchangeably and usually just used context to figure out what they meant. Someone who'd had an informed opinion would have stopped them and clarified what each word meant rather than taking my inferior approach and deciphering their meaning via context clues.
This is a beautiful semantic argument, let me ugly it up by asking: what system is the one that should be in place? Regardless of what particular nit-picks about what the US currently does, what is the more just model: a proportional one, where the popular vote determines president, or the FPTP-style model with discrete electoral college votes? I could see arguments for either model, but I lean towards the former.
Talking US elections, i think either we get super convenient, computerized voting with complex preferential voting systems to allow for a large pool of candidates so that it becomes less of a red vs blue scenario. Make it so I can always make my first choice known without having to decide between that, or a strategic vote for a candidate who I don't agree with Dave for their opposition to one i agree less with. But even so I am not sure I really like these election or the way I hear most people go about their thoughts of how to vote or who to vote for.
So, maybe the republic/Electoral College method wound be in fact better, with serious changes.
Id prefer a more elaborate electoral college where we the people vote for and choose a team of electors from our districts, who then tour their electing region and learn first hand what their people are up against. Thus even if district 34 votes for republican team B, those 3 or 4 people tour and hold hearings and essentially spend 6 months hearing the stories from across the spectrum of people they represent. Hopefully they gain better appreciations for the Democrats and what not. This is to open their perspectives some.
Then eventually those teams go on to a national convention to spend an extended period of time evaluating a shared pool of presidential candidates (how those are chosen I don't know, let's assume it's between 8 an 16 candidates) and then after an exhaustive campaign, they go to voting on their choice.
Then they present their choosen candidate, with all the explanations of the merits and achievements of this person.
And, perhaps, then we have a popular vote of the people to acknowledge their choice, or to call for a different choice. Maybe this needs a suoermajority vote of no confidence. Like unless overwhelmingly people say the person is a bad choice, then the committee's pick stands.
Either way the benefits are that the people who make the call are hopefully those who have a chance to interact with the candidates more perspnally. They have had the sole job for months of deliberating on the choices and had plenty of opportunity to consider each alternative and compare notes. They have to choose someone that isn't going to get immediately rejected and will be able to see first hand when someone is a decent human and when someone is competent or not. Then will have to make their case.
In all cases if the presidential candidates themselves do not campaign at all that might be ideal. Maybe they won't even know they are finalists.
I can totally see reasons and ways this setup could be spectacularly bad. Corruption or closed doors negotiations or what-not but... if the position of president is just popularity contest, then maybe they shouldn't also be in charge of so many things that are best left to a qualified individual.
I want CGP Grey for President but doesn't mean he's the best choice. I would trust a few hundred electors to make a good choice but I don't see any significant benefit to the sytem we have now, other than electors can potentially vote against their public mandate if they disagree. But why not flip it around? Let the electors do all the work up front, and check with the people after for confirmation that they made a solid choice.
I didn't pick up on a lack of friendliness. It was just a discussion. As to forming an opinion as to the meaning of words, that seems an odd concept to me for words that aren't currently evolving within the vernacular. By and large, words and long standing political theories are already clearly defined. One could debate what nations employ which structure(s) and why, but the meanings of these terms are well defined, as many stated far earlier in the conversation. Nuri pointed out that you were refuting the definitions, and you were. That isn't unfriendly, IMO, just accurate.
To be clear, I have no horse in this race. I only asked both Chaos and Steve to define those words so they could stop talking past each other.
As to an opinion on words let me try and elaborate. I've observed people using democracy and republic basically interchangeably and usually just used context to figure out what they meant. Someone who'd had an informed opinion would have stopped them and clarified what each word meant rather than taking my inferior approach and deciphering their meaning via context clues.
Sorry, my quote tag f'd up or more likely I f'ed it up. That was directed at Chaosof99's statements.
That wasn't an ad hominem attack as she did not attack your character or personal traits. She accurately described the conversation.
The issue here is that you began the debate with a false premise and a bit of a fallacy of definition vis a vis your inaccurate/conflated/poorly delineated definitions of republic, democracy, and democratic republic. While these terms do relate to one another, they are not synonymous.
Sorry, but Nuri did not provide argue against my previous statements. Instead they made my style of debate a topic and basically branded me as willfully obtuse and stubborn, and did so in a deceptive manner by editing out my reasons for disagreeing and rejecting Steve's statement when quoting. I would characterize that as an ad hominem since they changed the subject of the discussion from the actual disagreement to my person.
I also never claimed that democracy, republic and democratic republic are synonyms. I claimed that democracy encompasses republics because every republic is a democracy, in rebuttal to Steve's claim that there is a spectrum with "democracy" on one end and "republic" on the other. My first statement in that regard was this:
Republic - a representative democracy in which the people's elected deputies (representatives), not the people themselves, vote on legislation.
[...]
Maybe I appeared to be a little bit combative, and I apologize for that. However it is rather vexing when someone makes such a provably wrong and inexcusably ignorant claim as "The United stats is NOT a democracy", particularly when they start out by ridiculing other people for their shortcomings of political perspective.
Chaosof99 I may have caused some confusion in that my references to a democracy/republic spectrum was meant to refer specifically to the US and no where else. I thought we were speaking specifically about the US as my original comment was about an issue currently in the US.
Not to beat a dead horse.... At the founding of the US, would you have called it a republic or a democracy? Why.
Chaos99 I may have caused some confusion in that my references to a democracy/republic spectrum was meant to refer specifically to the US and no where else. I thought we were speaking specifically about the US as my original comment was about an issue currently in the US.
The issue I have is that this spectrum doesn't exist. Neither in the U.S. nor elsewhere because republics are a subset of democracies.
There is also not a change between levels of government within the U.S. which is why any one voter gets to vote for a city council, a state senators and congressmen etc. as well as a mayor, a governor and the president. It is literally the same process on every level of government and the only difference is how much power the elected person has based on the responsibilities of the office they are elected to . The only exception is the office of the president which has an additional buffer of the electoral college but even in that case the voter still casts his vote for the candidate and not the electors.
Not to beat a dead horse.... At the founding of the US, would you have called it a republic or a democracy? Why.
Just like today: Both. Because it is a republic in which democratically elected representatives decide on policy. People get to vote on their representatives, who in turn vote on what policies to enact. People also get to vote who should be the representatives to enforce and enact the policies. It is demonstrably both and has been since the founding and hasn't change in that way. The only thing that has changed since then is the number and sort of people who get to vote (for the better, I might add).
That wasn't an ad hominem attack as she did not attack your character or personal traits. She accurately described the conversation.
The issue here is that you began the debate with a false premise and a bit of a fallacy of definition vis a vis your inaccurate/conflated/poorly delineated definitions of republic, democracy, and democratic republic. While these terms do relate to one another, they are not synonymous.
Sorry, but Nuri did not provide argue against my previous statements. Instead they made my style of debate a topic and basically branded me as willfully obtuse and stubborn, and did so in a deceptive manner by editing out my reasons for disagreeing and rejecting Steve's statement when quoting. I would characterize that as an ad hominem since they changed the subject of the discussion from the actual disagreement to my person.
Your argument and how you make it are relevant. They also are not you or your character. Her breakdown was no different than you (improperly) asserting that she made an ad hominem attack against you. She summarized the debate. If you disagree with her summarization, then address that (as you did in subsequent posts). No one branded you anything. It seems that you currently do not understand the ad hominem fallacy.
No, universal sufferage is not a requirement. There will always be limitations on who is allowed to vote and who is not. E.g. today non-citizens and convicts can't vote either. I would vastly prefer for my tastes that as many people were allowed to vote, but a restriction on who is allowed to vote in and of itself does not preclude it from being a democracy. I will concede however that if voting is strongly limited to only a very select and deterministic few it will drift into oligarchy, a related but separate form of government that violates the spirit of democracy ("the will of the people").
As for your link, when you examine their definition of "republic", quoted below, you will find that it closely matches my definition I gave earlier and explicitly describes it as a democracy.
The term "republic" as used today refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a president, serving for a limited term. Even in a republic, it's the voice of the majority that rules through chosen representatives; however, there is a charter or constitution of basic rights that protects the minority from being completely unrepresented or overridden.
In fact, the whole article basically says everything I've been saying, including that equating "democracy" with "direct democracy" as if that is the only type of democracy is fallacious, that the declaration that the United States is a republic but not a democracy is wrong, that the United States is in fact a democracy by virtue of being a republic and a republic being a democracy, that the kind of governance as a democracy or republic is not bound to the level of the government etc.
To make it short, it thoroughly and completely negates every claim you made in our argument.
When I refer to democracy I refer to a very specific form of government. Under your definition, what forms of government are not democracies?
Edit: I ask because it sounds like your definition of democracy (as a form of government) would cover every form of government that involves voting. So even the Roman Catholic Church would be a democracy.
When I refer to democracy I refer to a very specific form of government. Under your definition, what forms of government are not democracies?
Edit: I ask because it sounds like your definition of democracy (as a form of government) would cover every form of government that involves voting. So even the Roman Catholic Church would be a democracy.
Examples of Not-democracies: Theocracies, Absolute monarchies, dictatorships, oligarchies, anarchy.
The roman catholic church is a theocratic oligarchy. The theocratic part should be obvious. The oligarchy is because even though they vote on who should be pope after a pope passes away, only a handful of select few already high-ranking members get to vote. In addition you can not be elected priest but more or less would have to get "licensed" to be a priest by existing high-ranking members.
Your definition of "every form of government that involves voting" misses a core part: People need to be the ones voting, not just high-placed members of the government. Democracy is characterized by every stakeholder getting an equal say in a decision. Democracy is a form of government that goes from the bottom up, not from the top down.
When I refer to democracy I refer to a very specific form of government. Under your definition, what forms of government are not democracies?
Edit: I ask because it sounds like your definition of democracy (as a form of government) would cover every form of government that involves voting. So even the Roman Catholic Church would be a democracy.
Examples of Not-democracies: Theocracies, Absolute monarchies, dictatorships, oligarchies, anarchy.
The roman catholic church is a theocratic oligarchy. The theocratic part should be obvious. The oligarchy is because even though they vote on who should be pope after a pope passes away, only a handful of select few already high-ranking members get to vote. In addition you can not be elected priest but more or less would have to get "licensed" to be a priest by existing high-ranking members.
Your definition of "every form of government that involves voting" misses a core part: People need to be the ones voting, not just high-placed members of the government. Democracy is characterized by every stakeholder getting an equal say in a decision. Democracy is a form of government that goes from the bottom up, not from the top down.
So, universal suffrage is or is not a requirement? Before you said it wasn't and now you say it does?
No, universal sufferage is not a requirement. There will always be limitations on who is allowed to vote and who is not. E.g. today non-citizens and convicts can't vote either.
Why would non-citizens be allowed to vote in a democracy? They are not the people of the nation.
I think you are confusing Democracy as a form of government with democracy as a family of governments. I thought the article would clear that up for you in the section that lists the differences between a Democracy and a Republic. To summarize that section for you a Republic has citizens that are individually sovereign while a Democracy has citizens that are collectively sovereign. If you can not see the distinction there is no point in continuing.
So, universal suffrage is or is not a requirement? Before you said it wasn't and now you say it does?
I addressed that very point already once when I explained that universal suffrage is not a requirement, but here I go again: Democracy is characterized as the will of the people. As such a large quantity of people are needed to represent "the people", the low-level citizens that are the fundamental element of an organization. There will always be some restriction on who is allowed to vote and who is not, e.g. convicts have been disenfranchised in the United States.
If the decision power is only in a few select people, much of which will be deterministic and with little change of who is allowed to vote or not, it's called an oligarchy. In an oligarchy every member is bound to the decisions, but only a very small number makes the decisions. Yes, this means that Oligarchy and democracy separated by a degree but they are still distinct forms of government. This is primarily because in an oligarchy the decision power is usually passed on through a hereditary process by the people in power either passing on their power to their direct descendants or choosing their successors. Those successors can not make decisions concurrently (meaning the number of people making decisions doesn't increase).
This is completely base-level civics and governance. I learned most of this stuff in middle school. Please buy a textbook. I am not even sure what your point is how you are trying to justify your previous statements such as "the United States is NOT a democracy" through this reasoning.
You can tell this is the craziest election in our history, because it's been over for a month and shit keeps getting crayer.
I imagine having Obama voted in was pretty crazy for the white supremacists of America when he first got voted in. We kept on getting news stories of "the first non-white American Presidents" for months. Not to mention the influence on forms of media and writing.
I guess voting in a really dumb Nazi as your leader is similarly worrying for those outside of the white supremacist American population.
Well, this is a fucking bombshell. And the response by the Trump camp would be hilarious if it wasn't so disgusting. The statement is three sentences long. The first is an outright lie. The second is a lie and a non-sequitur, plus the statement in and off itself is rather audacious considering the circumstances. And the third is basically just them saying "just look the other way".
Well, this is a fucking bombshell. And the response by the Trump camp would be hilarious if it wasn't so disgusting. The statement is three sentences long. The first is an outright lie. The second is a lie and a non-sequitur, plus the statement in and off itself is rather audacious considering the circumstances. And the third is basically just them saying "just look the other way".
One thing I forgot to say or basically only realized after writing the above post is how the Trump camp is attempting to discredit the fucking state intelligence agency which he will have to depend on and whose intelligence briefings and just overall support he will need during his tenure in office. The president-elect basically just said "You can't trust our the CIA."
Comments
Website: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/resources/the-world-factbook/
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/div-classtitletesting-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizensdiv/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B
The issue here is that you began the debate with a false premise and a bit of a fallacy of definition vis a vis your inaccurate/conflated/poorly delineated definitions of republic, democracy, and democratic republic. While these terms do relate to one another, they are not synonymous.
As to an opinion on words let me try and elaborate. I've observed people using democracy and republic basically interchangeably and usually just used context to figure out what they meant. Someone who'd had an informed opinion would have stopped them and clarified what each word meant rather than taking my inferior approach and deciphering their meaning via context clues.
So, maybe the republic/Electoral College method wound be in fact better, with serious changes.
Id prefer a more elaborate electoral college where we the people vote for and choose a team of electors from our districts, who then tour their electing region and learn first hand what their people are up against. Thus even if district 34 votes for republican team B, those 3 or 4 people tour and hold hearings and essentially spend 6 months hearing the stories from across the spectrum of people they represent. Hopefully they gain better appreciations for the Democrats and what not. This is to open their perspectives some.
Then eventually those teams go on to a national convention to spend an extended period of time evaluating a shared pool of presidential candidates (how those are chosen I don't know, let's assume it's between 8 an 16 candidates) and then after an exhaustive campaign, they go to voting on their choice.
Then they present their choosen candidate, with all the explanations of the merits and achievements of this person.
And, perhaps, then we have a popular vote of the people to acknowledge their choice, or to call for a different choice. Maybe this needs a suoermajority vote of no confidence. Like unless overwhelmingly people say the person is a bad choice, then the committee's pick stands.
Either way the benefits are that the people who make the call are hopefully those who have a chance to interact with the candidates more perspnally. They have had the sole job for months of deliberating on the choices and had plenty of opportunity to consider each alternative and compare notes. They have to choose someone that isn't going to get immediately rejected and will be able to see first hand when someone is a decent human and when someone is competent or not. Then will have to make their case.
In all cases if the presidential candidates themselves do not campaign at all that might be ideal. Maybe they won't even know they are finalists.
I can totally see reasons and ways this setup could be spectacularly bad. Corruption or closed doors negotiations or what-not but... if the position of president is just popularity contest, then maybe they shouldn't also be in charge of so many things that are best left to a qualified individual.
I want CGP Grey for President but doesn't mean he's the best choice. I would trust a few hundred electors to make a good choice but I don't see any significant benefit to the sytem we have now, other than electors can potentially vote against their public mandate if they disagree. But why not flip it around? Let the electors do all the work up front, and check with the people after for confirmation that they made a solid choice.
I also never claimed that democracy, republic and democratic republic are synonyms. I claimed that democracy encompasses republics because every republic is a democracy, in rebuttal to Steve's claim that there is a spectrum with "democracy" on one end and "republic" on the other. My first statement in that regard was this: This is, though I did not plan it that way, basically identical to the definition of the CIA you posted a day later:
Maybe I appeared to be a little bit combative, and I apologize for that. However it is rather vexing when someone makes such a provably wrong and inexcusably ignorant claim as "The United stats is NOT a democracy", particularly when they start out by ridiculing other people for their shortcomings of political perspective.
Not to beat a dead horse.... At the founding of the US, would you have called it a republic or a democracy? Why.
There is also not a change between levels of government within the U.S. which is why any one voter gets to vote for a city council, a state senators and congressmen etc. as well as a mayor, a governor and the president. It is literally the same process on every level of government and the only difference is how much power the elected person has based on the responsibilities of the office they are elected to . The only exception is the office of the president which has an additional buffer of the electoral college but even in that case the voter still casts his vote for the candidate and not the electors.
Just like today: Both. Because it is a republic in which democratically elected representatives decide on policy. People get to vote on their representatives, who in turn vote on what policies to enact. People also get to vote who should be the representatives to enforce and enact the policies. It is demonstrably both and has been since the founding and hasn't change in that way. The only thing that has changed since then is the number and sort of people who get to vote (for the better, I might add).
Edit: this might help http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic
As for your link, when you examine their definition of "republic", quoted below, you will find that it closely matches my definition I gave earlier and explicitly describes it as a democracy. In fact, the whole article basically says everything I've been saying, including that equating "democracy" with "direct democracy" as if that is the only type of democracy is fallacious, that the declaration that the United States is a republic but not a democracy is wrong, that the United States is in fact a democracy by virtue of being a republic and a republic being a democracy, that the kind of governance as a democracy or republic is not bound to the level of the government etc.
To make it short, it thoroughly and completely negates every claim you made in our argument.
Edit: I ask because it sounds like your definition of democracy (as a form of government) would cover every form of government that involves voting. So even the Roman Catholic Church would be a democracy.
The roman catholic church is a theocratic oligarchy. The theocratic part should be obvious. The oligarchy is because even though they vote on who should be pope after a pope passes away, only a handful of select few already high-ranking members get to vote. In addition you can not be elected priest but more or less would have to get "licensed" to be a priest by existing high-ranking members.
Your definition of "every form of government that involves voting" misses a core part: People need to be the ones voting, not just high-placed members of the government. Democracy is characterized by every stakeholder getting an equal say in a decision. Democracy is a form of government that goes from the bottom up, not from the top down.
I think you are confusing Democracy as a form of government with democracy as a family of governments. I thought the article would clear that up for you in the section that lists the differences between a Democracy and a Republic. To summarize that section for you a Republic has citizens that are individually sovereign while a Democracy has citizens that are collectively sovereign. If you can not see the distinction there is no point in continuing.
If the decision power is only in a few select people, much of which will be deterministic and with little change of who is allowed to vote or not, it's called an oligarchy. In an oligarchy every member is bound to the decisions, but only a very small number makes the decisions. Yes, this means that Oligarchy and democracy separated by a degree but they are still distinct forms of government. This is primarily because in an oligarchy the decision power is usually passed on through a hereditary process by the people in power either passing on their power to their direct descendants or choosing their successors. Those successors can not make decisions concurrently (meaning the number of people making decisions doesn't increase).
This is completely base-level civics and governance. I learned most of this stuff in middle school. Please buy a textbook. I am not even sure what your point is how you are trying to justify your previous statements such as "the United States is NOT a democracy" through this reasoning.
I guess voting in a really dumb Nazi as your leader is similarly worrying for those outside of the white supremacist American population.