5 ms·
Depends on what you mean by democracy. Suppose you get 100% voter participation through free and fair elections. Are you still sure that fails the definition
by platz 8y ago
Depends on what you mean by democracy. Suppose you get 100% voter participation through free and fair elections. Are you still sure that fails the definition of democracy? How hard is it to make that case?
What if the voters choose an outcome you just don't happen to like? Is that all of a sudden undemocratic?
- chucksmash 8y agoIt's certainly possible to make an undemocratic decision democratically. Consider holding a referendum that specified nobody who hadn't yet been born as of the referendum date would ever be allowed to vote. It's a purposefully silly example (HN isn't for political debates!) but broadly, it's a democratically made self determination that reduces or precludes the ability to make democratic decisions in the future.
- platz 8y agoThat's why I made sure to include "free and fair elections" in my description
- chucksmash 8y agoAnd the current election would be both free and fair. It's the consequences that would be anything but.
- hannasanarion 8y agoAnd if the majority of those voters are opposed to democracy itself, and vote for candidates who promise to take away votes from people they don't like, or establish a theocracy? "America isn't and shouldn't be a democracy" is a common Republican talking point. This has happened in Poland and Hungary and its darn close to happening in the United States.
- platz 8y agoWell that's quite a pickle to find oneself in, isn't it?
- 0x445442 8y agoNot sure what you’re implying with your statement about the Republican talking point. The point of the point is the U.S. was designed to be a Constitutional Republic which isn’t a democracy. The Constitutional Republic is designed to protect the rights and freedoms of the individual via the Constitution and bill of rights. If by Democracy one is referring solely to majority rule, then protection against individual rights and freedom are lost. The U.S. should fear the latter, not the former.
- siidooloo 8y agoThe United Stares is a constitutional republic and a representative democracy. The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy and a representative democracy. Democracy is not the opposite of a republic. Monarchy is.
- 0x445442 8y agoTrue as long as the representative democracy doesn’t infringe on the individual’s constitutional rights. That’s where the democracy bit gives way to the judicial branch. Of coarse with a politicized court you’re right back to the ills of a democracy.
- siidooloo 8y agoWhat you’re saying is still true in a constitutional monarchy. Being a republic or democracy doesn’t matter. Its the constitutional part that’s important.
- hannasanarion 8y agoRepublic and Democracy are not exclusive. There is no such thing as "being republic or democracy". It's really simple: Monarchy: yes king Republic: no king Democracy: yes votes Autocracy: no votes Constitutional: yes constitution Absolute: no constitution You can have these in any combination.
- someguydave 8y ago
- someguydave 8y agoIndeed, the Constitution states that the form of government of the United States should be a republic. Thus it already provides for the "low information voter" problem by mediating the will of the voter through his or her representative.