Democracy

Whys is America almost always referred to as a Democracy?? When in fact it isn't and never has been a Democracy.

This confuses me because it's not just the politically ignorant who does this.....it seems to be everyone.

 

I've never heard anyone say that America has never been a democracy. Can you explain your view?

 

American " democracy" is an illusion . It ceased to be a democracy as early as 1782 with the founding fathers wanting a centralized banking system . And the power of private interests that grew up out of it destroyed democracy .

It's not a true democracy it's an oligarchy , run by the rich elite few , for the rich elite few . It follows the golden rule , he who has the gold makes the rules .

 

This rant against the rich few misses the point.

America is a representative republic. A set of states, cobbled together for a common good (self protection). America isn't a democracy because it was never meant to be, from the very beginning. The founding fathers never wanted it to be so.

The FF recognized that the general population would not be able to be well enough informed to make proper decisions. They'd be mislead, or too underinformed, to do a good job. Instead, we elect people who represent us, who have a duty to learn the ins/outs of particular issues.

Notable also is that the senate was originally even further from democracy. Until the 17th amendment (the wilson administration), senators were APPOINTED by the state assemblies. The senators were supposed to represent the state interests (not the people, but the state proper, i.e. colorado). The representatives in the house were supposed to represent the people. This was to keep power in check and government small. A state senator was supposed to shut down any encroachment on the state's rights.

This is also why we don't have a national presidential election. We have 51 individual state elections for president. And in theory, a single state could choose to cast its "electoral college" votes for president based on height or hair color. Each state gets to choose on its own model (although they're all very similar by standard). But the only reason we tabulate all the votes nationally is for curiosity's sake.

For what it's worth, there's the civics lesson.

You can argue the merits or drawbacks of this Representative Republic system (i happen to like it), but it is the one we have.

 

^Thank you

In a democracy there wouldn't be a constitution to protect the rights of the minority. No matter how outrageous something might be, if the majority voted for it then it would be passed into law. Whereas in America, even if a law is passed it could still be deemed unconstitutional and shot down. Thus protecting the constitutional rights of the minority who voted against it.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this is my understanding.

 

Have you ever recited the Pledge of alliegance? It doesn't say "...and to the democracy, and for which it stands."

Look it up, it's common knowledge (or at least it should be) that the United States of America is a Republic, not a Democracy.

 

Another side light: The FF were really big into the ability to vote with your feet. That is, if you didn't like something in one state, you should be able to go elsewhere.

So, for instance, the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". It doesn't say "Government shall make no law". State and local official churches were FINE, and in fact, common at the time.

I make no commentary on what should be, or shouldn't be, only what is/was in the document.

We (Americans) are so underinformed on this stuff it's sick.

 

This is why some believe that it is unconstitutional for the Federal Government to ban religious text in government buildings, schools, etc. because if you get right down to it.....it is. I believe it should be up to the state to make those decisions. I'm not saying I think one way or the other, I'm saying if you believe in the constitution, it shouldn't be controlled on a federal level.

Think for a moment......if the Feds were limited in the way the founding fathers envisioned, everyone would have a chance to live in the environment that made them most happy. The religious could have the 10 commandments in their children's schools, the Athiests could choose a state that bans public prayer entirely. This is just one example. It would fully allow the persuit of happiness that America was built upon.

 

It is a Democratic Republic where rich idiots run it into the ground.

 

That is commonly thought. But technically it's a "Federal Presidential Constitutional Republic." Or simply a Federal Republic. You can call it what you want, but that's what it is.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_republics

 

You have a choice: American democracy or Walmarts.

Choose wisely.

 

What I never understood the millions of time this line has been mentioned on the internet is..................what point are you trying to make? The US is a Republic and a Democracy, democracy is an adjective to describe a Republic, as most Republics are supposed to be inherently democratic if functioning properly. The various states also has measures in place that allowed them to act as a direct democracy if enough signatures are collected to force something to the ballot.

 

The point is that many americans feel that we are a nation where "majority rule" is the fundamental tenet of government. We are not, were never meant to be, and IMHO, should not be. The general population is far too uninformed to vote intelligently on various subjects - AND THAT'S A GOOD THING. The general population should be getting on with the business of work and life. That's even ignoring the fact that "rights" override votes.

Additionally, that sort of direct influence of the masses is contrary to the best interests of those same masses. As Ben Franklin said..."When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

We get this "feeling" from the improper teaching of civics. One of the greatest teachers (charismatically) i ever had was my 9th grade American History teacher. Smart, witty, entertaining, convincing, and dead wrong on how the US Gov't is supposed to work.

They do not. At my last check, only Colorado and California had such provisions (back in 04), but more may be available. But certainly far short of "most" or "all". And, it should be noted that Colorado and California constitutions are both a mess because of this. In Colorado, there are two amendments - one that restricts the growth of taxation, and another that requires increases in spending on education. Mathematically, unless this changes, the entire budget of colorado will eventually be spent on K-12 education. That's the havoc true democracy brought.

 

Are this old chestnut

It seems to me that the ‘republic argument’ is often promoted by the same people promoting a more oligarchical or plutocratic system. For example it is often put forward by right wing libertarians because it suites their agenda.

What should be realised is that a constitutional republic doesn’t have to have any democratic element in it at all. It is a cover all - you can have a constitutional republic that is a democracy, you can have a constitutional republic that is an oligarchy, you can even have a constitutional republican that is a dictatorship.

The Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic was a constitutional republic (a republic with a constitution). It was so even under Stalin.

The US was a republic at the beginning when only around 10% of Americans had the vote and even fewer could actually run for office just as it was in 1965 when the Voting Rights Act was signed and it still is today. And it would still be a republic if the constitution was rewritten so that it became even more democratic.

*

As to a constitutional republic being better at respecting or protecting the rights of minorities I’d only point out that it didn’t help black Americans, native Americans, Americans of Japanese decent and communist Americans.

 

Haha I was hoping you'd show up Bal!

Your post was humorous, can I have another?

 

Letlovin

Maybe in 7 days when you get back.

Balbus

 

It's not an argument. It's a statement as to what the document says.

All of this is accurate, but not relevant. It in no way changes squat about the topic at hand. America's form of gov't is not a democracy. I wasn't quite sure where you were headed with this, to be honest.

I never addressed this, in my previous posts. However, it has been measurably better. It *did*, in fact, help all of those peoples, eventually. We make mistakes, but they get fixed. That's the great thing about checks and balances.

Of note here, also: According to the tour guide in Philadelphia, the passage of power from Washington to Jefferson was the first time supreme power in a country had ever passed peacefully from one person to another unrelated person, in the history of the world. And we've done the same, even in times of huge potential crises (think bush/gore), for over 225 years. Our specific form of constitutional republic seems to work pretty well.

 

Essef
It seems to me that the ‘republic argument’ is often promoted by the same people promoting a more oligarchical or plutocratic system. For example it is often put forward by right wing libertarians because it suites their agenda.

I’m unsure of your meaning here a statement can be an argument, a point of view, an opinion or a question and an argument can be presented as a statement.

 

Essef

I’m not claiming the US isn’t a republic I’m asking what form of republic people would want. The point is that a republic can take many shapes including having democratic elements in it – in other words it’s a democratic republic.

The US was a republic at the beginning when only around 10% of Americans had the vote and even fewer could actually run for office just as it was in 1965 when the Voting Rights Act was signed and it still is today. And it would still be a republic if the constitution was rewritten so that it became even more democratic.

The question is would someone want a republic where only 10% of the richest people had a vote or all citizens?

It seems to me that many of the people that like to emphasis the ‘republican’ element of the US are in some way opposed to the ‘democratic’ element, that ‘betters’ should be in a position to block or veto the popular vote.