• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Why do we need the Electoral College?

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I would venture a guess that very few illegals are counted, since it could lead to arrest, deportation etc..

Why would it do that?

It doesn't require them to answer or prove any citizenship.


However, non-citizens living here legally have been counted and they should be counted as the Constitution has always provided.

Does it?

I wasn't aware the Constitution gave any references to citizenship during the census.

It seems to me that counting US citizens only wasn't included as it would exclude slaves and defeat the need for a 3/5ths rule. I'm not aware if, for example, Indians were counted if they happened to take up residence (even temporarily) in part of the county.

If the lack of citizenship requirement was because slavery (and I'm not sure it was) then the requirement should have been added upon the emancipation proclamation.

Regardless, upon principle alone....it seems not only contradictory but somewhat cruel to consider people who aren't allowed any political power to be counted when deciding who gets political representation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pommer
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Any state can manage their EC votes like Nebraska and Maine. The winner get the two Senate Electors, and the winner in any Congressional District get that Elector.

It's also probably worth noting that any elector who doesn't follow state laws is unlikely to be punished or their vote discarded.
 
Upvote 0

FenderTL5

Κύριε, ἐλέησον.
Site Supporter
Jun 13, 2016
5,709
6,674
Nashville TN
✟784,810.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Why would it do that?

It doesn't require them to answer or prove any citizenship.
It was a definite concern during the 2020 Census when the GOP was trying to add the citizenship question, many non-citizens locally were avoiding it (even those here legally) out of fear of the ramifications. The 2020 also had challenges with COVID.
I wasn't aware the Constitution gave any references to citizenship during the census.
The 14th Amendment of the Constitution says that the census include "the whole number of persons in each State" , regardless of citizenship status.
If the lack of citizenship requirement was because slavery (and I'm not sure it was) then the requirement should have been added upon the emancipation proclamation.
I presume the reason there is no citizenship requirement in the Constitution is because a significant portion of the population were immigrants.
i.e. Grandpa is not a citizen but he should be represented in Congress.
and yes, slaves were counted as part of the 3/5ths rule but they did not have protections as citizens.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 allowed any free white person of “good character,” who had been living in the United States for two years or longer, to apply for citizenship. Without citizenship, nonwhite residents are denied basic constitutional protections, including the right to vote, own property, or testify in court.. but non-citizens were counted in the first census (also 1790) and the majority identified as "English".

Of course early on, there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant. The US had what is essentially an open border policy until after the US Civil War.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

I march with Sherman
Mar 11, 2017
23,134
17,202
55
USA
✟435,524.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
This is not a democracy, it's a republic. And majority rule is what they wished to avoid.
Democracies can be republics and vice versa.

Democracy = Voting to choose a government.
Republic = no hereditary leadership.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
It was a definite concern during the 2020 Census when the GOP was trying to add the citizenship question, many non-citizens locally were avoiding it (even those here legally) out of fear of the ramifications. The 2020 also had challenges with COVID.

I'm fully aware it was a concern in 2020....

And again, I'd ask what the point of giving political power based on people who aren't citizens is?


The 14th Amendment of the Constitution says that the census include "the whole number of persons in each State" , regardless of citizenship status.

Yeah, I know.


I presume the reason there is no citizenship requirement in the Constitution is because a significant portion of the population were immigrants.

Possibly....it was 1 year after the Civil War. Still, it seems more likely to do with the citizenship of former slaves being uncertain.


i.e. Grandpa is not a citizen but he should be represented in Congress.
and yes, slaves were counted as part of the 3/5ths rule but they did not have protections as citizens.

Right....but they're being "represented" in Congress. See what I'm saying? It's true that they don't really have representation....but they're giving political power to those who own them.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 allowed any free white person of “good character,” who had been living in the United States for two years or longer, to apply for citizenship. Without citizenship, nonwhite residents are denied basic constitutional protections, including the right to vote, own property, or testify in court.. but non-citizens were counted in the first census (also 1790) and the majority identified as "English".

Ok.



Of course early on, there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant. The US had what is essentially an open border policy until after the US Civil War.

Right...it makes less sense now.

I think part of the problem is that people imagine some database of US citizens exists and all we would have to do is enter your birthday, name, place of birth, maybe your parents names....and the database will spit out if you're here on a visa, as a citizen, etc.

That doesn't exist.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
And majority rule is what they wished to avoid.

That's a weird statement. The only options are....

1. Majority rule.
2. Minority rule.
3. Single leader rule.

Now....we're clearly a minority ruled nation on the national level. We elect a minority of people who wield political power. On the state level....in some states....we're a direct majority rule....as we can vote on various state or local proposals that will become state or local law. Otherwise, we're a minority rule.....and that's basically the only way it works. We can't possibly bother everyone to vote on every issue all the time. The only other system is a single leader.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Democracy is not "mob rule".

In many ways, nothing is more democratic than "mob rule". When a bunch of people go lynch someone....that mob is practicing democratic social justice.

Anything else sort of requires at least a leader to guide the mob in some way.
 
Upvote 0

JSRG

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2019
2,394
1,529
Midwest
✟240,115.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Possibly....it was 1 year after the Civil War. Still, it seems more likely to do with the citizenship of former slaves being uncertain.

What you are talking about is from Fourteenth Amendment, which says:

"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed"

But there was no uncertainty about the citizenship of former slaves, because earlier in the very same amendment, the following is declared:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

This left no question about the citizenship of former slaves, as it declared them citizens if they had been born in the United States. Indeed, a major purpose of this part of the Fourteenth Amendment was to make clear the citizenship of former slaves and overturn the controversial Supreme Court decision Dred Scott v. Sandford, which claimed black people, free or not, were constitutionally forbidden from becoming citizens of the United States.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
What you are talking about is from Fourteenth Amendment, which says:

"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed"

That's interesting....so it does exclude Indians.

Why wouldn't it similarly exclude illegals?


But there was no uncertainty about the citizenship of former slaves, because earlier in the very same amendment, the following is declared:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

This left no question about the citizenship of former slaves, as it declared them citizens if they had been born in the United States. Indeed, a major purpose of this part of the Fourteenth Amendment was to make clear the citizenship of former slaves and overturn the controversial Supreme Court decision Dred Scott v. Sandford, which claimed black people, free or not, were constitutionally forbidden from becoming citizens of the United States.

Fair enough....

The problem I see with the idea of including illegals is that they don't exercise any political power....yet the only justification I can find for counting them is an implicit obligation of representatives to represent every person in their district. I'm sure if you look....you'll find that's the most common answer.

Yet the problem is that because they don't actually exercise any political power....they simply don't have to be considered by any representatives. The illegals in your district don't like the bill you supported and passed? Who cares? They can't vote. It's the difference between lending political authority and exercising it.
 
Upvote 0

Matt5

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2019
1,046
447
Zürich
✟191,309.00
Country
Switzerland
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The Constitution is but a speed-bump for liberals.

Tim Walz's move in Minn. to eliminate the Electoral College raises alarms - Washington Times

From the article:

Liberals have long dreamed of scrapping the Electoral College and replacing it with the national popular vote, a goal that Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz helped make a reality in his state.
...

In May 2023, Mr. Walz signed legislation that would award Minnesota’s 10 presidential electors to the national popular vote winner, even if that candidate loses the state. Regardless of which candidate wins Minnesota, the national popular vote winner would control the state’s electors.
...

The legislation, signed into law with little fanfare as part of an omnibus spending bill, added Minnesota to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. The coalition of 17 Democratic-controlled states and the District of Columbia aims to make the Electoral College irrelevant.

Combined, the states have 209 electoral votes, accounting for 39% of the Electoral College and 77% of the 270 votes needed to give the compact the teeth to overtake the Electoral College.
 
Upvote 0

Whyayeman

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2018
4,626
3,133
Worcestershire
✟204,301.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I suspect the US is the only democratic country in the world where a candidate getting more total votes can still lose the election.
I am afraid not. The British system produces distorted results as well and from time to time a party with fewer votes in total than the opposing one obtains a majority of seats in the House of Commons and gains power.

What has been suggested above is a form of proportional representation - PR - (dividing electoral college votes by candidate instead of a block vote). I support the idea of PR for British elections and commend it to USA. A discussion of what form it should take would be interesting but I will leave that to Americans to initiate.
 
Upvote 0

Whyayeman

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2018
4,626
3,133
Worcestershire
✟204,301.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I think that would be more likely to happen if we weren't counting illegals as people in the census. They aren't supposed to vote for representatives so why would we count them for representatives?

If they were removed from the calculation of citizens to representatives, I think the left would have a stronger argument for more representatives.
I think this is a red herring. The issue is worth discussing, but has no bearing on the use of electoral college votes to determine the presidency.
 
Upvote 0

FenderTL5

Κύριε, ἐλέησον.
Site Supporter
Jun 13, 2016
5,709
6,674
Nashville TN
✟784,810.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Possibly....it was 1 year after the Civil War. Still, it seems more likely to do with the citizenship of former slaves being uncertain.
You missed by almost a 100 years, Revolutionary War you may have meant to say and slave freedom was not even on the horizon , yet.(Edit, I'm referencing the naturalization act)
Right....but they're being "represented" in Congress. See what I'm saying? It's true that they don't really have representation....but they're giving political power to those who own them.
I kinda' understand your point. otoh, the decisons made by our represenatives effect all of us living here, citizen and non-citizen alike. I would presume that initially, and I'm only guessing because I/we live in a vastly different world from the founders, they thought that reresentation of ALL living in the district was important enough to count - or - perhaps it was just a compromise for southern slave owners.. I dunno.
Right...it makes less sense now.
On that, if you'll indulge me an anecdote:
I live in Tennessee's Fifth Congressional District, inside the city limits of Nashville. I've been here over a quarter century. when I first arrived the 5th district was centered over Nashville and extended into the nearby suburbs. My representative was Jim Cooper (D). I came to TN a registered Republican. Jim had an office in downtown Nashville and was always accomodating when I asked to speak with him (when he was not in DC) and his staff always opened the door. He (or a staff person) always answered my correspondence, even where we disagreed. I could tell it was read because the answer usually addressed specifics in my correspondence. I became supportive because I felt represented, even though we disagreed on some items.

Flash forward to now, the TN State legislature gerrymandered the 5th district after the 2020 census. They split Nashville into thirds and extended three districts through the city, beyond the suburbs and the 5th now extends south of Columbia. The R's got their desired result and a George Santos clone Republican was elected in the 5th. If he has an office, I don't know where it is. He lives somewhere between Columbia and Hohenwald almost 100 miles away. he, nor his staff has ever, not once responded when I wrote, utilizing the email submission form on the US Congress website. He doesn't represent, in any way, whether we agree or disagree on issues.

I tend to think a representaive Government should represent everyone living within the jurisdictions.

I think part of the problem is that people imagine some database of US citizens exists and all we would have to do is enter your birthday, name, place of birth, maybe your parents names....and the database will spit out if you're here on a visa, as a citizen, etc.

That doesn't exist.
Agree.

That's interesting....so it does exclude Indians.
Why wouldn't it similarly exclude illegals?
..because at the time of the 14th Amendment there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant. The US had an open border policy until the Chinese were excluded after the Civil War. The better question is why were Native Americans excluded? I think there's a hint in the language, they were not taxed (immigrants legal or not pay taxes) and had their own governments. ..but I'm guessing.
Native Americans gained citizenship status after WW1.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Larniavc
Upvote 0

JSRG

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2019
2,394
1,529
Midwest
✟240,115.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
That's interesting....so it does exclude Indians.

Why wouldn't it similarly exclude illegals?

The Fourteenth Amendment was passed in 1868. Unless one wants to count when the congress made importation of slaves illegal in 1808, there were no immigration restrictions whatsoever in the United States until 1875 when the Page Act was passed. So there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed. Perhaps if the Fourteenth Amendment was passed a few decades later, after various immigration restrictions were passed (mostly aimed at the Chinese) they would have worded it differently.

Fair enough....

The problem I see with the idea of including illegals is that they don't exercise any political power....yet the only justification I can find for counting them is an implicit obligation of representatives to represent every person in their district. I'm sure if you look....you'll find that's the most common answer.

Yet the problem is that because they don't actually exercise any political power....they simply don't have to be considered by any representatives. The illegals in your district don't like the bill you supported and passed? Who cares? They can't vote. It's the difference between lending political authority and exercising it.
Well, as noted, illegal immigrants didn't exist at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was passed. But if we want to consider it as a matter of policy, the problem here is that if we want to follow this logic, for the purpose of determining the number of Representatives, anyone who doesn't have voting power shouldn't be counted (this would exclude various convicted felons, any non-citizens (even legal ones), and people not yet old enough to vote). However, this would then create an odd situation where states would be considerably incentivized to do things like make the voting age as low as possible in order to get more Representatives.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Larniavc
Upvote 0

JSRG

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2019
2,394
1,529
Midwest
✟240,115.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I am afraid not. The British system produces distorted results as well and from time to time a party with fewer votes in total than the opposing one obtains a majority of seats in the House of Commons and gains power.

I don't think that's quite comparable.

The statement was "I suspect the US is the only democratic country in the world where a candidate getting more total votes can still lose the election" (emphasis mine). But you're talking about when a party getting more seats while receiving a lower percentage of the vote. Candidates and parties are different.

Granted, as the parties elect the prime minister, it does mean a party (or coalition) can get a majority of the vote but not a majority of the seats, with someone else becoming prime minister. But people don't actually vote for prime minister; they vote for a candidate for office in parliament, and one of the duties of that candidates is to elect the prime minister. That's a fairly big difference.

Technically, people don't vote directly for president in the US either; the electoral college makes them vote for an elector who then votes for the President. However, when it comes down to actually choosing who to vote for and filling out the ballot, you're effectively voting directly for a presidential candidate. The electors don't campaign and are anonymous to most people, so their identities are essentially irrelevant. In contrast, in the UK or other parliamentary systems, while the identity of the party's leader looms like a shadow over the election because people know that a vote for a candidate is a vote for that candidate's party's leader as prime minister, the fact the candidate is still going to be in office and voting on bills and such means that their identity does actually matter. In the UK, while I'm sure many people look just at the party leader and vote entirely based on that, others will more seriously consider the identity of the candidate they are actually voting for. That's not the case in the US, where the presidential candidate is really the only thing that matters to voters in the election, and the identities of the electors are irrelevant.

What has been suggested above is a form of proportional representation - PR - (dividing electoral college votes by candidate instead of a block vote). I support the idea of PR for British elections and commend it to USA. A discussion of what form it should take would be interesting but I will leave that to Americans to initiate.

The big problem with proportional representation for President is that you'd need an amendment to do it, which is very difficult. The Constitution grants plenary power to the states on choosing electors while granting none to the federal government, so the federal government can't pass a law saying that states have to do it proportionally. And the states aren't going to be willing to do it individually; California isn't going to dilute its guaranteed 55 Democratic electors if Texas is still getting its 38 guaranteed Republican electors. So the only way to do it would be to pass an amendment requiring all states to do it proportionally, which of course is extraordinarily difficult.
 
Upvote 0

Palmfever

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Dec 5, 2019
1,208
701
Hawaii
✟343,545.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Democracies can be republics and vice versa.

Democracy = Voting to choose a government.
Republic = no hereditary leadership.
From thoughtco

In both a republic and a democracy, citizens are empowered to participate in a representational political system. They elect people to represent and protect their interests in how the government functions.

Key Takeaways​

  • Republics and democracies both provide a political system in which citizens are represented by elected officials who are sworn to protect their interests.
  • In a pure democracy, laws are made directly by the voting majority, leaving the rights of the minority largely unprotected.
  • In a republic, laws are made by representatives chosen by the people and must comply with a constitution that protects the rights of the minority from the will of the majority.
  • The United States, while basically a republic, is best described as a “representative democracy.”
In a republic, an official set of fundamental laws, like the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, prohibits the government from limiting or taking away certain inalienable rights of the people—even if that government was freely chosen by a majority of the people. In a pure democracy, the voting majority has almost limitless power over the minority.


The main difference between a democracy and a republic is the extent to which the people control the process of making laws under each form of government.


Pure Democracy

Republic

Power Held by

The population as a whole

Individual citizens

Making Laws

A voting majority has almost unlimited power to make laws. Minorities have few protections from the will of the majority.

The people elect representatives to make laws according to the constraints of a constitution.

Ruled by

The majority

Laws made by elected representatives of the people

Protection of Rights

Rights can be overridden by the will of the majority.

A constitution protects the rights of all people from the will of the majority.

Early Examples

Athenian democracy in Greece (500 BCE)

The Roman Republic (509 BCE)

Is the U.S. a Democracy or a Republic?​

The United States, like most modern nations, is neither a pure republic nor a pure democracy. Instead, it is a hybrid democratic republic. However, when the delegates of the United States Constitutional Convention debated the question in 1787, the exact meanings of the terms republic and democracy remained unsettled. At the time, there was no term for a representative form of government created “by the people” rather than by a king. In addition, American colonists used the terms democracy and republic more or less interchangeably, as remains common today.
In Britain, the absolute monarchy was giving way to a full-fledged parliamentary government. Had the Constitutional Convention been held two generations later, the framers of the U.S. Constitution, having been able to read the new constitution of Britain, might have decided that the British system with an expanded electoral system might allow America to meet its full potential for democracy.
Nevertheless, Founding Father James Madison may have best described the difference between a democracy and a republic:
“It [the difference] is that in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person: in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, must be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region.”
The fact that the Founding Fathers intended for the United States to function as a representative democracy, rather than a pure democracy, is illustrated in a letter from Alexander Hamilton to Gouverneur Morris dated May 19, 1777.1
“But a representative democracy, where the right of election is well secured and regulated & the exercise of the legislative, executive and judiciary authorities, is vested in select persons, chosen really and not nominally by the people, will in my opinion be most likely to be happy, regular and durable.”

The Concept of a Democracy​

Coming from the Greek words for “people” (dēmos) and “rule” (karatos), democracy means “rule by the people.” As such, a democracy requires that the people be allowed to take part in the government and its political processes. U.S. President Abraham Lincoln may have offered the best definition of democracy as being "a government of the people, by the people, for the people” in his Gettysburg Address on November 19, 1863.
Typically through a constitution, democracies limit the powers of their top rulers, such as the President of the United States, set up a system of separation of powers and responsibilities between branches of the government, and protect the natural rights and civil liberties of the people.


In a pure democracy, all citizens who are eligible to vote take an equal part in the process of making laws that govern them. In a pure or direct democracy, the citizens as a whole have the power to make all laws directly at the ballot box. Today, some U.S. states empower their citizens to make state laws through a form of direct democracy known as the ballot initiative. Put simply, in a pure democracy, the majority truly does rule, and the minority has little or no power.

Representative Democracy​

In a representative democracy, also called an indirect democracy, all eligible citizens are free and encouraged to elect officials to pass laws and formulate public policy representing the needs and viewpoints of the people. Today, representative democracies are very commonly utilized, by nations including the United States, the United Kingdom, and France.

Participatory Democracy​

In a participatory democracy, eligible citizens vote directly on policy while their elected representatives are responsible for implementing those policies. In this manner, the people determine the social and economic direction of the state and the operation of its political systems. While representative and participatory democracies share similar ideals and processes, participatory democracies tend to encourage a higher level of citizen participation than traditional representative democracies.

While there are currently no countries specifically classified as participatory democracies, most representative democracies employ citizen participation as a tool for social and political reform. In the United States, for example, so-called “grassroots” citizen participation causes such as the women’s suffrage campaign have led elected officials to enact laws implementing sweeping social, legal, and political policy changes.

The concept of democracy can be traced back to around 500 BCE in Athens, Greece. Athenian democracy was a true direct democracy, or “mobocracy,” under which the public voted on every law, with the majority having almost total control over rights and freedoms.

The Concept of a Republic​

Derived from the Latin phrase res publica, meaning “the public thing,” a republic is a form of government in which the social and political affairs of the country are considered a “public matter,” with representatives of the citizen body holding the power to rule. Because citizens govern the state through their representatives, republics may be differentiated from direct democracies. However, most modern representative democracies are republics. The term republic can also be attached to not only democratic countries but also to oligarchies, aristocracies, and monarchies in which the head of state is not determined by heredity.


In a republic, the people elect representatives to make the laws and an executive to enforce those laws. While the majority still rules in the selection of representatives, an official charter lists and protects certain inalienable rights, thus protecting the minority from the arbitrary political whims of the majority.


In this sense, republics like the United States function as representative democracies. In the U.S., senators and representatives are the elected lawmakers, the president is the elected executive, and the Constitution is the official charter.


Perhaps as a natural outgrowth of Athenian democracy, the first documented representative democracy appeared around 509 BCE in the form of the Roman Republic. While the Roman Republic’s constitution was mostly unwritten and enforced by custom, it outlined a system of checks and balances between the different branches of government. This concept of separate governmental powers remains a feature of almost all modern republics.

Republics and Constitutions​

As a republic’s most unique feature, a constitution enables it to protect the minority from the majority by interpreting and, if necessary, overturning laws made by the elected representatives of the people. In the United States, the Constitution assigns this function to the U.S. Supreme Court and the lower federal courts.


For example, in the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared all state laws establishing separate racially segregated public schools for Black and white students to be unconstitutional. In its 1967 Loving v. Virginia ruling, the Supreme Court overturned all remaining state laws banning interracial marriages and relationships.


More recently, in the controversial Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that federal election laws prohibiting corporations from contributing to political campaigns violated the corporations’ constitutional rights of free speech under the First Amendment. Further, the constitutionally granted power of the judicial branch to overturn laws made by the legislative branch illustrates the unique ability of a republic’s rule of law to protect the minority from a pure democracy’s rule of the masses.
 
Upvote 0

Whyayeman

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2018
4,626
3,133
Worcestershire
✟204,301.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I agree the two countries' constitutions are different and the comparison is not quite valid. What we have in common is the first past the post system. I think there are serious shortcomings and while change in both our countries is difficult we should not give up on reforming our systems.

A proposal to reform British House of Lords to abolish the heredity principle was agreed in 1902. The current Government, elected last July has announced that hereditary members will be barred from participation in the current Parliament!
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

I march with Sherman
Mar 11, 2017
23,134
17,202
55
USA
✟435,524.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
From thoughtco

In both a republic and a democracy, citizens are empowered to participate in a representational political system. They elect people to represent and protect their interests in how the government functions.

Key Takeaways​

  • Republics and democracies both provide a political system in which citizens are represented by elected officials who are sworn to protect their interests.
  • In a pure democracy, laws are made directly by the voting majority, leaving the rights of the minority largely unprotected.
  • In a republic, laws are made by representatives chosen by the people and must comply with a constitution that protects the rights of the minority from the will of the majority.
  • The United States, while basically a republic, is best described as a “representative democracy.”
In a republic, an official set of fundamental laws, like the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, prohibits the government from limiting or taking away certain inalienable rights of the people—even if that government was freely chosen by a majority of the people. In a pure democracy, the voting majority has almost limitless power over the minority.


The main difference between a democracy and a republic is the extent to which the people control the process of making laws under each form of government.


Pure Democracy

Republic

Power Held by

The population as a whole

Individual citizens

Making Laws

A voting majority has almost unlimited power to make laws. Minorities have few protections from the will of the majority.

The people elect representatives to make laws according to the constraints of a constitution.

Ruled by

The majority

Laws made by elected representatives of the people

Protection of Rights

Rights can be overridden by the will of the majority.

A constitution protects the rights of all people from the will of the majority.

Early Examples

Athenian democracy in Greece (500 BCE)

The Roman Republic (509 BCE)

Is the U.S. a Democracy or a Republic?​

The United States, like most modern nations, is neither a pure republic nor a pure democracy. Instead, it is a hybrid democratic republic. However, when the delegates of the United States Constitutional Convention debated the question in 1787, the exact meanings of the terms republic and democracy remained unsettled. At the time, there was no term for a representative form of government created “by the people” rather than by a king. In addition, American colonists used the terms democracy and republic more or less interchangeably, as remains common today.
In Britain, the absolute monarchy was giving way to a full-fledged parliamentary government. Had the Constitutional Convention been held two generations later, the framers of the U.S. Constitution, having been able to read the new constitution of Britain, might have decided that the British system with an expanded electoral system might allow America to meet its full potential for democracy.
Nevertheless, Founding Father James Madison may have best described the difference between a democracy and a republic:

The fact that the Founding Fathers intended for the United States to function as a representative democracy, rather than a pure democracy, is illustrated in a letter from Alexander Hamilton to Gouverneur Morris dated May 19, 1777.1


The Concept of a Democracy​

Coming from the Greek words for “people” (dēmos) and “rule” (karatos), democracy means “rule by the people.” As such, a democracy requires that the people be allowed to take part in the government and its political processes. U.S. President Abraham Lincoln may have offered the best definition of democracy as being "a government of the people, by the people, for the people” in his Gettysburg Address on November 19, 1863.
Typically through a constitution, democracies limit the powers of their top rulers, such as the President of the United States, set up a system of separation of powers and responsibilities between branches of the government, and protect the natural rights and civil liberties of the people.


In a pure democracy, all citizens who are eligible to vote take an equal part in the process of making laws that govern them. In a pure or direct democracy, the citizens as a whole have the power to make all laws directly at the ballot box. Today, some U.S. states empower their citizens to make state laws through a form of direct democracy known as the ballot initiative. Put simply, in a pure democracy, the majority truly does rule, and the minority has little or no power.

Representative Democracy​

In a representative democracy, also called an indirect democracy, all eligible citizens are free and encouraged to elect officials to pass laws and formulate public policy representing the needs and viewpoints of the people. Today, representative democracies are very commonly utilized, by nations including the United States, the United Kingdom, and France.

Participatory Democracy​

In a participatory democracy, eligible citizens vote directly on policy while their elected representatives are responsible for implementing those policies. In this manner, the people determine the social and economic direction of the state and the operation of its political systems. While representative and participatory democracies share similar ideals and processes, participatory democracies tend to encourage a higher level of citizen participation than traditional representative democracies.

While there are currently no countries specifically classified as participatory democracies, most representative democracies employ citizen participation as a tool for social and political reform. In the United States, for example, so-called “grassroots” citizen participation causes such as the women’s suffrage campaign have led elected officials to enact laws implementing sweeping social, legal, and political policy changes.

The concept of democracy can be traced back to around 500 BCE in Athens, Greece. Athenian democracy was a true direct democracy, or “mobocracy,” under which the public voted on every law, with the majority having almost total control over rights and freedoms.

The Concept of a Republic​

Derived from the Latin phrase res publica, meaning “the public thing,” a republic is a form of government in which the social and political affairs of the country are considered a “public matter,” with representatives of the citizen body holding the power to rule. Because citizens govern the state through their representatives, republics may be differentiated from direct democracies. However, most modern representative democracies are republics. The term republic can also be attached to not only democratic countries but also to oligarchies, aristocracies, and monarchies in which the head of state is not determined by heredity.


In a republic, the people elect representatives to make the laws and an executive to enforce those laws. While the majority still rules in the selection of representatives, an official charter lists and protects certain inalienable rights, thus protecting the minority from the arbitrary political whims of the majority.


In this sense, republics like the United States function as representative democracies. In the U.S., senators and representatives are the elected lawmakers, the president is the elected executive, and the Constitution is the official charter.


Perhaps as a natural outgrowth of Athenian democracy, the first documented representative democracy appeared around 509 BCE in the form of the Roman Republic. While the Roman Republic’s constitution was mostly unwritten and enforced by custom, it outlined a system of checks and balances between the different branches of government. This concept of separate governmental powers remains a feature of almost all modern republics.

Republics and Constitutions​

As a republic’s most unique feature, a constitution enables it to protect the minority from the majority by interpreting and, if necessary, overturning laws made by the elected representatives of the people. In the United States, the Constitution assigns this function to the U.S. Supreme Court and the lower federal courts.


For example, in the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared all state laws establishing separate racially segregated public schools for Black and white students to be unconstitutional. In its 1967 Loving v. Virginia ruling, the Supreme Court overturned all remaining state laws banning interracial marriages and relationships.


More recently, in the controversial Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that federal election laws prohibiting corporations from contributing to political campaigns violated the corporations’ constitutional rights of free speech under the First Amendment. Further, the constitutionally granted power of the judicial branch to overturn laws made by the legislative branch illustrates the unique ability of a republic’s rule of law to protect the minority from a pure democracy’s rule of the masses.
Your generated site is "overthinking" things.
 
Upvote 0