Is the USA a Constitutional Republic or a Democracy?

[durangodawood]

Actually the terms are not at all interchangeable...

There was nothing our founding fathers despised more than direct democracies. James Madison wrote something in the Federalist Papers against them.

If they didnt want democracy, they should not have allowed we the people to select the government.

And for sure they should have have made voter ballot initiatives off limits even at the state level.

 

[Hazelelponi]

If they didnt want democracy, they should not have allowed we the people to select the government

Not through direct democracy. We didn't even directly elect our state senators until sometime after 1910.

 

[durangodawood]

Not through direct democracy. We didn't even directly elect our state senators until sometime after 1910.

I would definitely consider a form of democracy where we the people choose "electors" again. Like properly, where the name of the elector is on the ballot - and no pres candidates, and they arent bound by any "pledge".

And get rid of direct democracy ballot initiaives altogether.

I wonder how many people who reject the notion that we're any kind of democracy would go for that?

 

[Hazelelponi]

and no pres candidates, and they arent bound by any "pledge".

You don't like the pledge the Republican party made all the candidates sign?

I thought everyone loved that... It was supposed to prevent Trump from going 3rd party if he lost the primary.

That's how I always saw it. And most people supported that... Until Trump won the primary anyway.

 

[durangodawood]

You don't like the pledge the Republican party made all the candidates sign?

I thought everyone loved that... It was supposed to prevent Trump from going 3rd party if he lost the primary.

That's how I always saw it. And most people supported that... Until Trump won the primary anyway.

I was talking about the notion of pledged electors on your ballot. Rejecting that and going back to the Founders notion that you seemed to respect, where we the people vote on actual electors and not just mathematical stand-ins for known pres candidates.

 

[Hans Blaster]

There was nothing our founding fathers despised more than direct democracies. James Madison wrote something in the Federalist Papers against them.

And it was Madison in Federalist No. 10 that essential *INVENTED* the distinction between the two as propaganda. It is still propaganda, just of a different sort. (Well, maybe not that different, it is still the rulers trying to keep the rabble out of control.)

Modern political science distinguishes a republic as a nation without hereditary leadership (the UK is not a republic, the US is) where as democracy is nation where power derives from the action of the people by voting. (the UK is a democracy, the US is a democracy, North Korea isn't).

There are democratic monarchies and non-democratic republics. (For the latter, putting "democratic republic" is usually a give away that it is not democratic.)

 

[Hazelelponi]

I was talking about the notion of pledged electors on your ballot. Rejecting that and going back to the Founders notion that you seemed to respect, where we the people vote on actual electors and not just mathematical stand-ins for known pres candidates.

Ahh... Okay.

 

[Hazelelponi]

And it was Madison in Federalist No. 10 that essential *INVENTED* the distinction between the two as propaganda

It came from some of his readings I imagine. I know they were all reading and sharing a lot of books about various failed democracies...

 

[Vambram]

I just wondered how long your basic civics lesson would last, that's all. So far we haven't learned anything new.

Judging by the various responses to this thread, I believe that this discussion is informative as to how various Americans interpret this topic about the kind of Federal and state constitutional government in the USA.

 

[Vambram]

Actually the terms are not at all interchangeable...

There was nothing our founding fathers despised more than direct democracies. James Madison wrote something in the Federalist Papers against them.

I completely agree that the two terms, on a Federal level, are not interchangeable. On a Federal level, if we had a representative democracy where the will of the majority is allowed to easily override laws passed by Congress and signed by the president, then we will no longer have for much longer a Constitutional republic.

 

[Pommer]

I completely agree that the two terms, on a Federal level, are not interchangeable. On a Federal level, if we had a representative democracy where the will of the majority is allowed to easily override laws passed by Congress and signed by the president, then we will no longer have for much longer a Constitutional republic.

Yet we have witnessed the societal acceptance of cannabis despite the Federal statutes still on the books that lists it as a “Schedule I” drug.

BTAIM, the crux of this “republic” vs. “democracy” argument is this:
”should we be ruled by the popular ‘will-of-the-people’ or vest policy decisions with an elite class to guide us through the shoals of ‘popular-opinion’ (which we know can be fickle and unstable)?”

 

[GoldenBoy89]

There was nothing our founding fathers despised more than direct democracies.

I think maybe monarchies might have been a bit higher on the list considering the tyranny that united the colonies was coming directly from an out of control monarch.

 

[Vambram]

Yet we have witnessed the societal acceptance of cannabis despite the Federal statutes still on the books that lists it as a “Schedule I” drug.

BTAIM, the crux of this “republic” vs. “democracy” argument is this:
”should we be ruled by the popular ‘will-of-the-people’ or vest policy decisions with an elite class to guide us through the shoals of ‘popular-opinion’ (which we know can be fickle and unstable)?”

I don't want this thread to go way off on a tangent down a deep rabbit hole. On the topic of cannabis, medical and recreational majuiana, the approvals for them by majority of voters was done on state level. That is how it should be done, imo.


I like the interesting analysis you said with the crux and question contrasting constitutional republic vs. constitutional democracy.

 

[Pommer]

I don't want this thread to go way off on a tangent down a deep rabbit hole. On the topic of cannabis, medical and recreational majuiana, the approvals for them by majority of voters was done on state level. That is how it should be done, imo.


I like the interesting analysis you said with the crux and question contrasting constitutional republic vs. constitutional democracy.

Our nation is set up as a democracy-driven constitutional-republic.
We elect those whom craft the policies that allow the Nation to function.

What might happen if some of those so-elected, fail to craft the necessary policies?

 

[Hans Blaster]

It came from some of his readings I imagine. I know they were all reading and sharing a lot of books about various failed democracies...

Let me reiterate, it was Madison who made those definitions. To quote from Federalist 10:

After a discussion of faction, Madison then defines Democracy as such:

"From this view of the subject, it may be concluded, that a pure Democracy, by which I mean, a Society, consisting of a small number of citizens who assemble and administer the Government in person, can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. ... Hence it is, that such Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; ..."

In the next paragraph Madison opens with his more ideal definition of a Republic:

"A Republic, by which I mean a Government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking."

Madison then continues to with examples and contrast.


The more I think about it the odder this is. The government the proposed Constitution was replacing (the Confederation Congress) was *ALSO* a republic by Madison's definition. One part of Madison's argument is about the weakening of faction in a broad and diverse nation. (He was arguing against the notion that democracy could only work a small, uniform society (like a Greek city-state).

There is no need to get caught up in Madison's definitions used for a specific argument in a 1787 newspaper essay.

 

[KCfromNC]

I should also add that most people who make hay over the "Republic!" side of this issue looove their citizen ballot initiative power, which is pure direct democracy.

Up until the people choose the wrong thing, if several recent high profile cases of elected officials trying to ignore these votes are instructive.

 

[KCfromNC]

Not through direct democracy. We didn't even directly elect our state senators until sometime after 1910.

That's nice and all, but the question in the OP is about what the US is, not what it was early last century.

Bit in any cases, how many pages until we get to the arguments that state reps need to select their electors rather than have the general voting public do it? Isn't that the point of this sort of rhetoric - to support efforts to get GOP candidates elected even when they lose?

 

[BCP1928]

That's nice and all, but the question in the OP is about what the US is, not what it was early last century.

Bit in any cases, how many pages until we get to the arguments that state reps need to select their electors rather than have the general voting public do it? Isn't that the point of this sort of rhetoric - to support efforts to get GOP candidates elected even when they lose?

What??? Are you suggesting that we are being (gasp) groomed???

 

[ViaCrucis]

DIrect democracy = direct rule by the people.
Indirect democracy = the rule of the people is delegated.
Republic = Rule by the representatives of the people.
Constitutional Republic = A republic with a constitution.

The United States: An indirect democracy and Constitutional Republic. The people vote for their reprsentatives, who are then supposed to represent the people. This is indirect democracy and republicanism in action. It's not an either/or, it's both/and. It's true that not all democracies are republics (e.g. the United Kingdom is a Constitutional Monarchy with democracy); and not all republics are democratic (e.g. The People's Republic of China). Technically, a monarchy can be democratic; and a republic can be undemocratic. A republic can be a dictatorship, and a democracy can have a monarchy. The United States, however, is both a democracy and a republic.

This democracy vs republic language is just political bloviation. The goal here is to politicize semantics, and is really intended to be a kind name game: Democrats/democracy; Republicans/republic.

See, Real America™ is a republic, not a democracy, so Republicans represent Real America™.

We love the Constitution.
They hate the Constitution.
We love America.
They hate America.
We love freedom.
They hate freedom.

That's the rhetoric. Don't believe it, it's dumb.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[durangodawood]

If its not a democracy youre welcome to stay home when its time for we the people to elect the government.