8 ms·

I think the most worrying aspect is an emerging strain of political thought in the US that USA is merely a republic but not a democracy. I find it quite shockin

I think the most worrying aspect is an emerging strain of political thought in the US that USA is merely a republic but not a democracy. I find it quite shocking that it has gained a great deal of acceptance. edit : typo

baggy_trough 6y ago
Depending on how such things are defined, it's absolutely the case, and that is how the system was designed.
beervirus 6y ago
But this is true, and has always been true.
Sargos 6y ago
The USA is technically not a democracy and is instead a representative republic which is a fact. I guess you're alluding to how citizens can "vote" which means it's actually a democracy to which I would strongly disagree. I have little to no influence over my government as I live in a gerrymandered district so my representative is decided for me ahead of time. I also only get to pick between 2 old white guys every 4 years which is me actually being optimistic as I don't live in a state that actually decides the presidential election so my vote doesn't matter there either. In a democracy I would actually be able to vote on issues and have my voice heard. That's clearly not happening in the USA.
- tom_mellior 6y ago
  > The USA is technically not a democracy and is instead a representative republic which is a fact. [...] live in a gerrymandered district so my representative is decided for me ahead of time. In what way is your republic "representative" then?
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > The USA is technically not a democracy and is instead a representative republic I have a degree in political science, and I've never seen anyone who knows what they are talking about use the term "representative republic". The US is, in theoretical structure, both a federal republic and a representative democracy, albeit one with very unequal representation. In practice, it tends to work as something like a plutocratic aristocracy, but its considered impolite in many circles to the point that out. > I also only get to pick between 2 old white guys every 4 years That's only true if you choose to restrict yourself to participation in only Presidential general elections, and not all the elections for other offices or earlier parts of the cycle (and also requires an unusually broad definition of "white" [e.g., including Barack Obama, 2008 & 2012] and "guy", [Hillary Clinton, 2016] and "old" [prior to Trump, the last three presidents were elected at ages 46, 54, and 47--though in the first and last cases their opponents were significantly older--which is certainly middle-aged but hardly "old" for a head of government.])
failuser 6y ago
Republic and democracy are orthogonal. Constitutional monarchy is usually democratic, and republic can be autocratic. Somehow a lot of people miss that.
eej71 6y ago
I'm one of those people. I certainly see America as a republic first and foremost. I appreciate the design of America that incorporates democratically electing one's representives in the House of Representives while balancing the downsides of such a process against other forms of voting. It's necessary to capture the passions of the body politic at large - which democratic voting does! - but it's also necessary to introduce mechanisms that can serve as a counterweight to the madness of crowds that have been frequently observed in history in America and other countries. If you haven't done so, do read The Federalist Papers.
- thebooktocome 6y ago
  All of those methods for balancing the "madness of crowds" (which is a strange euphemism for abolitionism) have been written out of the constitution. Senators are elected by popular vote now. Almost all the day-to-day legislative actions of both houses require merely a simple majority. The Federalist Papers are centuries out of date. They do not comprehend how modern politics functions. Hamilton could not imagine a multinational corporation with an unlimited purse and fewer limits on their free speech than an ordinary citizen.
  - eej71 6y ago
    I'd like to think we could agree that the Senate has become more politicized in the last few decades. I think where we disagree is what to do about it. There seems to be this prevailing cultural view that a democratic election is always good and always produces wise and just results. Where as people like me are fearful of what starts as the wise vox populi devolves into a crowd, transforms into an angry mob, and then the fun really begins! I always like a line that was attributed to George Washington... "George Washington is said to have told Jefferson that the framers had created the Senate to 'cool' House legislation just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea." By directly electing Senators, we have reduced that cooling function.
    - godtoldmetodoit 6y ago
      In my view the Senate has been all too successful at its 'cooling' function. Since the ACA what significant legislation has it passed? Has it done anything besides obstruct in a decade? The Senate has turned into a freezer :)
patagonia 6y ago
It's a representative democratic republic. A system of governance need not be a "direct democracy" to be a democracy. Article 1 Section 1: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. Section 2: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
komali2 6y ago
This is a result of bad faith astroturfing by conservatives. I'm not really sure the objective other than to have something to say when someone points out the glaringly obvious flaws about the electoral college system. It's not an argument against the electoral college system at all...

baggy_trough 6y ago

Depending on how such things are defined, it's absolutely the case, and that is how the system was designed.

beervirus 6y ago

But this is true, and has always been true.

Sargos 6y ago

The USA is technically not a democracy and is instead a representative republic which is a fact. I guess you're alluding to how citizens can "vote" which means it's actually a democracy to which I would strongly disagree. I have little to no influence over my government as I live in a gerrymandered district so my representative is decided for me ahead of time. I also only get to pick between 2 old white guys every 4 years which is me actually being optimistic as I don't live in a state that actually decides the presidential election so my vote doesn't matter there either. In a democracy I would actually be able to vote on issues and have my voice heard. That's clearly not happening in the USA.

tom_mellior 6y ago
> The USA is technically not a democracy and is instead a representative republic which is a fact. [...] live in a gerrymandered district so my representative is decided for me ahead of time. In what way is your republic "representative" then?
dragonwriter 6y ago
> The USA is technically not a democracy and is instead a representative republic I have a degree in political science, and I've never seen anyone who knows what they are talking about use the term "representative republic". The US is, in theoretical structure, both a federal republic and a representative democracy, albeit one with very unequal representation. In practice, it tends to work as something like a plutocratic aristocracy, but its considered impolite in many circles to the point that out. > I also only get to pick between 2 old white guys every 4 years That's only true if you choose to restrict yourself to participation in only Presidential general elections, and not all the elections for other offices or earlier parts of the cycle (and also requires an unusually broad definition of "white" [e.g., including Barack Obama, 2008 & 2012] and "guy", [Hillary Clinton, 2016] and "old" [prior to Trump, the last three presidents were elected at ages 46, 54, and 47--though in the first and last cases their opponents were significantly older--which is certainly middle-aged but hardly "old" for a head of government.])

failuser 6y ago

Republic and democracy are orthogonal. Constitutional monarchy is usually democratic, and republic can be autocratic. Somehow a lot of people miss that.

eej71 6y ago

I'm one of those people. I certainly see America as a republic first and foremost. I appreciate the design of America that incorporates democratically electing one's representives in the House of Representives while balancing the downsides of such a process against other forms of voting. It's necessary to capture the passions of the body politic at large - which democratic voting does! - but it's also necessary to introduce mechanisms that can serve as a counterweight to the madness of crowds that have been frequently observed in history in America and other countries. If you haven't done so, do read The Federalist Papers.

thebooktocome 6y ago
All of those methods for balancing the "madness of crowds" (which is a strange euphemism for abolitionism) have been written out of the constitution. Senators are elected by popular vote now. Almost all the day-to-day legislative actions of both houses require merely a simple majority. The Federalist Papers are centuries out of date. They do not comprehend how modern politics functions. Hamilton could not imagine a multinational corporation with an unlimited purse and fewer limits on their free speech than an ordinary citizen.
- eej71 6y ago
  I'd like to think we could agree that the Senate has become more politicized in the last few decades. I think where we disagree is what to do about it. There seems to be this prevailing cultural view that a democratic election is always good and always produces wise and just results. Where as people like me are fearful of what starts as the wise vox populi devolves into a crowd, transforms into an angry mob, and then the fun really begins! I always like a line that was attributed to George Washington... "George Washington is said to have told Jefferson that the framers had created the Senate to 'cool' House legislation just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea." By directly electing Senators, we have reduced that cooling function.
  - godtoldmetodoit 6y ago
    In my view the Senate has been all too successful at its 'cooling' function. Since the ACA what significant legislation has it passed? Has it done anything besides obstruct in a decade? The Senate has turned into a freezer :)

patagonia 6y ago

It's a representative democratic republic. A system of governance need not be a "direct democracy" to be a democracy. Article 1 Section 1: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. Section 2: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

komali2 6y ago

This is a result of bad faith astroturfing by conservatives. I'm not really sure the objective other than to have something to say when someone points out the glaringly obvious flaws about the electoral college system. It's not an argument against the electoral college system at all...