Emphasis on republic or democracy? .

Some people here have declared that the US is a republic not a democracy – I contend that it can have elements of both that the two things are not mutually exclusive. A republic can be a democracy and a democracy can be a republic.

But what for me is the more interesting question is why do some want to emphasis the republican aspect over the democratic one?

First some definitions.

Republic

Random House Dictionary

Collins Essential English Dictionary

*

Democracy

Random House Dictionary

Collins Essential English Dictionary

*

Oh it is possible to quibble if you define democracy in the most narrowly viewed way possible rather than the more widely seen way as defined by Random House and most others.

*

Anyway I wonder why someone would want to really emphasis the idea of republic over any democratic element, in fact trying to play down the democratic elements so it seems less important.

You see a republic can be a democracy (as seen by Random House) but it doesn’t have to be (note the ‘citizens entitled to vote’)

It would be possible to take the vote away from very large numbers of people and remain a Republic, while doing so would make people question if you were actually a democracy (as defined by random House et al).

The modern definition of democracy is of the wide spread enfranchisement of the citizenry.

But the US republic began with very limited voting rights (only white male property owners) and it was still a republic. Voting rights were fought for often in the face of fierce opposition from established powers and it could be argued that the US didn’t really become a modern democracy until 1965 with the Voting Rights Act.

Now if those voting rights were taken away and again only white male property owners were allowed to vote the US would still be a republic, but I don’t think I’d call it a modern democracy.

Now being someone that likes democracy I would look to it as the best element within a society, but maybe someone that wasn’t so keen on democracy would prefer to emphasis and define the republican element.

For example there has been disquiet over the number of criminals been disenfranchised (many poor and black) with people saying this isn’t a good trend in a democracy, but those in favour of such policies could just reply that the US is a Republic where it is possible to limit who can vote.

 

Guam.

The USA is not a modern democracy by your standards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guam#Government_and_politics

Despite most US citizens having a 'real' voting power the Guam issuse places the US as more republic then democratic. ( by the ' more widely seen way as defined by Random House and most others. you have given)

 

I see that those two definitions are basically different words describing the same thing.

And as far as voters being disenfranchised. We have laws, depending on what state you live in, that takes away your voting rights if you are a convicted felon. The national standard right now is approximately one in TEN is in the legal system for some reason with one in 135 actually incarcerated. I don't know what the ultimate body count of "convicted felons" might be, but that's a LOT of people who can't vote... To say nothing of all those who registered and then were told they couldn't vote for some obscure reason (wrong address, wrong box checked...) And then those of us who made the mistake of registering Independent (I did this years ago) discovered that we could not vote in the primaries for who we wanted. Not too sure how all this would fit into a Democracy? And then too, all those things voted FOR by the STATES, that the FEDERAL government will not allow, even tho the majority voted for them........

 

Posted by shadow2145 and moved here

 

Shadow how about an encyclopaedia?

msn Encarta

United States Government

[my abbreviation my bold]

Taken from a longer article written by Jean H. Baker, B.A., M.A., Ph.D. Professor of History at Goucher College.

 

ahh so you would rather believe somebody writing about the constitution than the people who wrote the constitution.

Just after the completion and signing of the Constitution, in reply to a woman's inquiry as to the type of government the Founders had created, Benjamin Franklin said, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

its good to know ben franklin didnt know what he was talking about while Jean H baker does.

 

Shadow

You really should read my posts.

Ben was right; it was a republic where only white male property owners had the vote which was about only 10 to 16 percent of the population. To me that wasn’t really a democracy.

Are you saying that is what you’d want, for only ten percent of Americans to have the vote?

 

ur right it wasnt a democracy its a republic. it can be a republic with everyone voting. the fact that only white males could vote doesnt make it a republic or a democracy. it is an invalid statment that has nothing to do with the topic.

you still cant seem to wrap ur brain around the fact that they are very different.

 

I am still waiting for a reply to my post. But i doubt I will get one given I have given an example that shits all over the definitions supplied by the OP.

 

this is true but i dont think i should be posting anything about it i would rather see balbus's post. balbus doesnt know the difference between a republic and a democracy. he still thinks ben franklin didnt know what he was talking about when he said it was a republic. balbus thinks that becasue only some people were aloud to vote then and everyone can vote now that we have a different type of government

 

Why not both, why does it have to be one or the other, both are important. Also, the United States isn't just a democratic republic, we're a federal democratic republic. All are important, our system of federalism is extremely important. Democracy of course is the most important part of a functioning state to have any kind of legitimacy, but the masses can often be asses(*cough* California *cough*) hence why pure democracy is generally only seen on rather large or contentious issues. At the same time we're both constitutionally a federal republic, the constitution explicit states the power of the United States government and the sovereignty of the nation itself rests with the people of the United States, so all organs of state from town government to federal must evolve based on that.

 

More doublespeak...

 

I’m not saying the US isn’t a republic, I’m saying it is a democratic republic, a republic with a strong democratic element, a democracy that happens to be a republic, a republic that happens to be a democracy.

The point I’m making is - it is possible to have a republic that isn’t democratic, and to me the more important element is the democracy, so why do people emphasis the republican element over that of the democratic element?

Why do people what to try and convince others that the US isn’t a democracy and that the democratic elements are not as important as being a Republic?

*

I’m also not saying that I think US democracy is perfect, I don’t think there has ever been a perfect democracy.

But to quote Churchill –

(from a House of Commons speech on Nov. 11, 1947)

A wide but imperfect democracy is better than one that is very limited and that is preferable to no democracy at all.

The thing is that it can be built on and improved.

Now Guam has been mentioned it is an unincorporated territory without full US rights and I think it should but the population of Guam is around 176,000, now more worrying to me is the 4 to 5 million Americans that have had their right to vote removed because of having a criminal conviction many of whom have done their punishment.

I think that is a lot more worrying for US democracy, but those in favour of such policies could just reply that the US isn’t a democracy and therefore it is perfectly alright to limit who can vote.

 

Fair enough. My post was a reply to why dipshits say it isnt a democracy.

 

hmm "!" got banned today... i wonder what he did.

 

dunno, but we're not allowed to discuss it....

 

i know. i wasnt discussing it. i was just making an observation that he was gone.

 

The idea of America being a "democracy" is a relatively new concept. There wasn't any mention of democracy in the Constitution as far as I know.

All I know is that if you take the word DEMOCRACY and break it down, it translates to mob (demos) rule (ocracy). Mob rule.

The globalists prefer the concept of democracy, because in a democracy the uninformed 51% majority have the power to enslave the other 49%.

In reality, democracy is the illusion that one can go to the polls every couple of years and vote for they candidates the establishment gives them to choose from. So democracy is what keeps people from rioting, because if people THINK they have a choice, they will remain content as apathetic slaves participating in a non-existent "democratic process" that only leads them gradually down the path to enslavement, while they naively believe they have a say in their destiny.

 

Nice to see you again, Pressed Rat!



I was wondering where you went.

 

Rat

LOL once more with the pro-elite propaganda, translating demos as ‘mob’ it has only been translated such by those that oppose democracy, the aristocracy, the nobility, the rich, the established orders. They also associated ‘demos’ with ‘lower classes’ as apposed to the ‘oligo’ – the few – the ‘upper classes. We get oligarchy from oligo, just as we get democracy from demos.

The normal translation of demos is ‘people’ or ‘citizens’, (it comes from Cleisthenes’ reform of the ‘demes’- townships) so it’s roughly ‘the citizens of the towns’, citizens of the state.

*

What I would ask - are you calling for a limiting of democracy, or for a completely other system where ‘the few’ have control?