4 ms·

Exactly -- because the US isn't a democracy (majority rule), it's a democratic republic.

by KerryJones 11y ago

tjgq 11y ago
Is that a distinction worth making? By that standard, how many countries in the world are actually democracies?
- studentrob 11y ago
  Absolutely it is. Google the difference. A democratic republic ultimately derives power from the people. There are more checks and balances in place in America than one person one vote. More info [1] [1] http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html
dpark 11y ago
It's not a direct democracy. That didn't mean it's not a democracy. If you redefine democracy to be the narrowest possible interpretation, you eliminate every government in the world. You also make the word pretty much useless.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- jMyles 11y ago
  It might be fair, though, to exclude governments whose founding documents and the position papers written to advance them expressly eschew and prohibit democratic rule, in favor of a limited and enumerated republic. There are some governments who claim authority to take any action authorized by the democratic process. The US government is not among them. Ergo, it is not properly classified as a "democracy."
  - Thrymr 11y ago
    You're defining "democracy" more narrowly than is reasonable. The 2nd definition at Merriam-Webster, for example [0], is "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections". "Republic" and "democracy" are not mutually exclusive. [0] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy
    - jMyles 11y ago
      Reducing the discussion to a dictionary definition is emblematic of many of the problems in today's political discourse. This pithy, literal definition of a term is not relevant, especially when that same term, in the same context, is discussed at length, in light of various philosophies on the matter, in the Federalist Papers. I don't think there's a better source of information about whether the government of the united States of America is a democracy than the position papers written to advance the four corners of its founding instruments, and they deliver an unambiguous "no." Let's say, for a a moment, that your definition, which seems to conflate these two distinguishable scenarios (one in which a government's power is strictly limited and enumerated, and another in which that power extends to the bounds of whatever a voting majority or their representatives might desire), is a reasonable one. How, then, do you discuss this distinction? ...and even by your definition, while an individual state might quality, the government of the USA does not: "supreme power" is wholly unavailable through the US government, at least in its legitimate purview (of course it exceeds this boundary frequently and flagrantly). It has dominion only over the specific areas outlined in the constitution; those not mentioned are reserved for the states or the people.
      - dpark 11y ago
        > I don't think there's a better source of information about whether the government of the united States of America is a democracy than the position papers written to advance the four corners of its founding instruments, and they deliver an unambiguous "no." I'm not a constitutional scholar, so forgive me. What exactly do you think unambiguously demonstrates that the United States is not a democracy? > ...and even by your definition, while an individual state might quality, the government of the USA does not: "supreme power" is wholly unavailable through the US government, at least in its legitimate purview (of course it exceeds this boundary frequently and flagrantly) I feel like the definition addressed this. (In fact, given that this is Webster's, I'd expect that the definition was written to specifically include the United States government.) The definition says "the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly". The fact that the Constitution reserves nonenumerated powers for "the states or the people" indicates a recognition that the power is vested in the people. The "legitimate purview", as you put it, consists of powers granted by the people who hold "supreme power".
  - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
    Democracy is a term which refers to both republics and plebiscites. The word you are looking for is "plebescite". Plebescite is widely believed to have been problematic in ancient Greece, which is why it's relatively rare.
- EdHominem 11y ago
  Yes, though you must consider that if your representative isn't bound to vote to represent you (even in general) the word is pretty watered down already.

Exactly -- because the US isn't a democracy (majority rule), it's a democratic republic.

tjgq 11y ago

Is that a distinction worth making? By that standard, how many countries in the world are actually democracies?

studentrob 11y ago
Absolutely it is. Google the difference. A democratic republic ultimately derives power from the people. There are more checks and balances in place in America than one person one vote. More info [1] [1] http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html

dpark 11y ago

It's not a direct democracy. That didn't mean it's not a democracy. If you redefine democracy to be the narrowest possible interpretation, you eliminate every government in the world. You also make the word pretty much useless.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jMyles 11y ago
It might be fair, though, to exclude governments whose founding documents and the position papers written to advance them expressly eschew and prohibit democratic rule, in favor of a limited and enumerated republic. There are some governments who claim authority to take any action authorized by the democratic process. The US government is not among them. Ergo, it is not properly classified as a "democracy."
- Thrymr 11y ago
  You're defining "democracy" more narrowly than is reasonable. The 2nd definition at Merriam-Webster, for example [0], is "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections". "Republic" and "democracy" are not mutually exclusive. [0] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy
  - jMyles 11y ago
    Reducing the discussion to a dictionary definition is emblematic of many of the problems in today's political discourse. This pithy, literal definition of a term is not relevant, especially when that same term, in the same context, is discussed at length, in light of various philosophies on the matter, in the Federalist Papers. I don't think there's a better source of information about whether the government of the united States of America is a democracy than the position papers written to advance the four corners of its founding instruments, and they deliver an unambiguous "no." Let's say, for a a moment, that your definition, which seems to conflate these two distinguishable scenarios (one in which a government's power is strictly limited and enumerated, and another in which that power extends to the bounds of whatever a voting majority or their representatives might desire), is a reasonable one. How, then, do you discuss this distinction? ...and even by your definition, while an individual state might quality, the government of the USA does not: "supreme power" is wholly unavailable through the US government, at least in its legitimate purview (of course it exceeds this boundary frequently and flagrantly). It has dominion only over the specific areas outlined in the constitution; those not mentioned are reserved for the states or the people.
    - dpark 11y ago
      > I don't think there's a better source of information about whether the government of the united States of America is a democracy than the position papers written to advance the four corners of its founding instruments, and they deliver an unambiguous "no." I'm not a constitutional scholar, so forgive me. What exactly do you think unambiguously demonstrates that the United States is not a democracy? > ...and even by your definition, while an individual state might quality, the government of the USA does not: "supreme power" is wholly unavailable through the US government, at least in its legitimate purview (of course it exceeds this boundary frequently and flagrantly) I feel like the definition addressed this. (In fact, given that this is Webster's, I'd expect that the definition was written to specifically include the United States government.) The definition says "the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly". The fact that the Constitution reserves nonenumerated powers for "the states or the people" indicates a recognition that the power is vested in the people. The "legitimate purview", as you put it, consists of powers granted by the people who hold "supreme power".
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  Democracy is a term which refers to both republics and plebiscites. The word you are looking for is "plebescite". Plebescite is widely believed to have been problematic in ancient Greece, which is why it's relatively rare.
EdHominem 11y ago
Yes, though you must consider that if your representative isn't bound to vote to represent you (even in general) the word is pretty watered down already.