4 ms·

>Congratulations, you've now created a totalitarian one-party dictatorship! The blues hold 60% of every district, so they win every district, so 100% of the nat

• mastazi 4y ago
  I grew up learning that "republicanism" means that you are opposed to the monarchy so I'm really confused by your comment. It seems that you are using the term "republic" as an equivalent of "pluralism" or possibly of "indirect democracy"?
  • daenz 4y ago
    I'm using "republic" here to point out that a district is acting like an elected representative.
    • mastazi 4y ago
      Yeah, thank you I get it now, I knew that concept under a different name, "indirect democracy". I guess in the USA, because of your history, you don't have a lot of debates around the pros and cons of monarchy and so the other meaning of "republican" is probably less common on your side of the ocean.
  • 8ytecoder 4y ago
    There's rule by majority and then there's individual rights. Pure democracy prioritizes majority rule and does not guarantee any right to individuals. A Republic has a constitution that usually lays out the fundamental rights of a person and laws are valid only if those rights are not violated.
  • wahern 4y ago
    "The United States is a republic, not a democracy" is a meme started by the John Birch Society that spread to the broader conservative movement and beyond, losing much of its coherency and substance. Now it's just become a hollow rebuttal to [often equally hollow] claims of anti-democratic policies or opinions. But those who have received the meme tend to understand "republic" as having a far more specific definition (centering on Birch Society political philosophy) than in general discourse, including historic discourse--the Founding Fathers used the terms "democracy" and "republic" more loosely, including giving republic the meaning you ascribe (which, I think, is the more correct literal definition), but also sometimes using them interchangeably or at least ambiguously.
    • mastazi 4y ago
      Thanks for the background info about the founding fathers. Growing up in Europe I only ever heard of the definition of republicanism as being opposed to monarchism. I guess the other meaning is specifically American, in the same way that "liberal" in America doesn't mean what it means in the rest of the world.
    • daenz 4y ago
      >But those who have received the meme tend to understand "republic" as having a far more specific definition (centering on Birch Society political philosophy) This is not how I used the word, so please don't speak for me.
      • wahern 4y ago
        Your usage of "republic" earlier seemed to be premised on an argument centering around the design and function of Federalism in American governance, which in turn implies certain arguments regarding how American political culture leverages political structure to address potential (and manifest) pathologies in simple systems of majoritarian rule. Otherwise, your use of "republic" makes little sense in the context of this thread as the principal and general meaning of the term is a contradistinction to monarchy and similar systems--e.g. Roman Empire. Early American writing tended to conflate "republic" and "democracy" because in the context of contemporary 18th century European political discourse they were as a practical matter two different ways to describe the same systems; there was little need to make finer distinctions. Today we understand nations like the U.K. or Finland as both democracies and [constitutional] monarchies, but that shift occurred later. Similarly, as more identified modern democracies came into being, they created contrast to the particular structures of American government. Importantly, "republic" and "democracy" were not mutually exclusive or in tension. The John Birch Society created the modern meme of "the U.S. is a republic, not a democracy" as a way to embody and emphasize a particular set of political arguments regarding the proper way to understand the design and function of American political institutions; that proper way becoming a premise to arguments opposing reforms which were popularly deemed more "democratic" in the contemporary narrative. (IOW, rather than trying to reappropriate the meaning of "democratic" from liberals, they decided to run in the other direction.) Those arguments were motivated by their notorious opposition to the Civil Right movement and [claimed] racist and sexist ideologies. But I didn't mean to suggest that you or others share the latter ideologies, or even knew about their historical association to the meme. The meme has succeeded in part because it aligned well with broader, subsequent evolutions in American conservative, especially libertarian, thinking. And it survives as a pithy way to oppose certain "democratic" reforms by alluding to a general set of arguments emphasizing the role and importance of political structure, and in particular the specific arrangement and form of American political institutions. Though in its modern form it arguably only begs the question--which aspects of structure matter, and why, precisely, should they be privileged in the particular situation under discussion. Conversely, claims of a reform being more "democratic" beg similar questions. For people who have yet to encounter the meme, the usage can be confusing, presuming they're even able to identify the conflicting meanings of "republic" at play. Today these people are often directed to web sites or videos that "teach" the meme as an historic fact of American political philosophy, often paraphrasing or directly quoting original John Birch Society literature and media--though almost never saying so, perhaps because the author may not have even known the provenance of their source material. To be clear, there's no denying that political structure is and always was heavily emphasized in American politics. Federalism is embedded deeply in the American Constitution, as are other organizational structures at both the state and federal level. But "republic, not democracy" is a modern, manufactured dichotomy designed to package and sell a particular set of political arguments, albeit arguments which have become more general and amorphous over time.
• jjoonathan 4y ago
  If you donate to both sides, you can do whatever you want with 1% of the vote. Imagine the horror if the 99% could do whatever they want to the 1%!
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • daenz 4y ago
    I'm not sure how this is relevant to my point, please explain.
• Jensson 4y ago
  > There is a strong desire for "democracy" over "republic" (not a combination of the two), meaning 51% of your average voters can do whatever they want to the remaining 49%. This is the dumbest argument for first past the post, how is this better than "35% of your average voters can do whatever they want to the remaining 65%"? No matter how you count the votes you will have a winner, and that winner can abuse the loser. 51% winning just means you get the fewest number of losers, and any other protections you can get with first past the post can also be gotten in a popularity vote system. The only thing you now miss is that some votes become worth much more than other votes, instead you just have 1 person 1 vote, which I thought was the standard of modern democracy.
  • daenz 4y ago
    >51% winning just means you get the fewest number of losers That's the wrong thing to optimize for.