R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
Yes it does. You democratically elect representatives to pass legislation and run the country, like basically all democracies. Representative democracy is still democracy.
- Status
P
ProVobis
Guest
The majority is often very fickle so I don’t worry about it.
P
ProVobis
Guest
It was not a decision for them to make but that said, Nixon might have disagreed with your characterization of the ideology of the ruling. (I.E, Progressive)
M
Maximus1
Guest
What about the value of beating back Authoritarianism? Isn’t that the subject of the piece?
Nixon governed left of center.JonNC:
It was not a decision for them to make but that said, Nixon might have disagreed with your characterization of the ideology of the ruling. (I.E, Progressive)
N
niceatheist
Guest
With the 17th amendment, the only branch of government not elected in some fashion is the Supreme Court. And really even some of the framers used the term “democracy” to describe the nature of the government.
And the 17th was a huge mistake, but still doesn’t make us a democracy. The use of democratic principles in certain elections dies not make our system of government a democracy.
N
niceatheist
Guest
This strikes me more as an example of the etymological fallacy. Even by the 18th century, there was a notion of a representative democracy, as opposed to the direct democracy of Classical Athens. You’re argument essentially boils down to “It’s not like Plato’s view of democracy, therefore it’s not a democracy”. By that definition, even Switzerland wouldn’t be a democracy, because it still has a legislature. But of course, that definition ignores about 800 years of parliamentary institutions.
Your definition of “democracy” pretty much went out the door with Edward I’s Model Parliament.
Your definition of “democracy” pretty much went out the door with Edward I’s Model Parliament.
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
A republic is a country without a king. America is a republic and a democracy. It wouldn’t need to say that America is a democracy anywhere and it would still be one, because of the way its executive and legislative bodies are organised, namely using representatives voted into power by the general population.
Then what possibly could? Is “democracy” just a meaningless term that nations self-identify with, or does it refer to concrete political processes?
Last edited:
N
niceatheist
Guest
As I say above, it’s an etymological fallacy invoked by some people, because America isn’t a direct democracy. But then again, there’s no democracy out there that is. Even Switzerland, though it has plebiscites, still has a parliament. That’s why the concept of the “representative democracy” was invented.
The problem is that now the use of the term “democracy “ is being used to undermine the republican system. Hence, the need to be clear. The growing opposition to the EC. And the germinating arguments against the existence of the senate.
These are arguments from a false premise that we are democracy.
N
niceatheist
Guest
No, the word democracy means “government by the people (demos)”. The US is most definitely, as Lincoln put it “government of the people, by the people , for the people”.
Being a republic is no more incompatible with being a democracy than being a constitutional monarchy is incompatible with being a democracy. The fact is the Ancient Greeks really hadn’t imagined representative democracy, so to them, democracy really was direct democracy.
The false premise here is taking a 2,400-2,500 year old definition of a word and insisting that it applies to a concept that really only arose in the last few centuries.
Being a republic is no more incompatible with being a democracy than being a constitutional monarchy is incompatible with being a democracy. The fact is the Ancient Greeks really hadn’t imagined representative democracy, so to them, democracy really was direct democracy.
The false premise here is taking a 2,400-2,500 year old definition of a word and insisting that it applies to a concept that really only arose in the last few centuries.
Again, find the term democracy in the constitution. The framers were intent to prevent a democracy.
Then you are quite satisfied with the election of the president as democratic. Good.
You recognize that the power of government is not dependent on the whims of a current era, that individual rights are many, and government powers are limited.
It refers to a form of governance, one unlike our republic. While we use democratic principles, we do not govern that way.
Again, find the term democracy in the constitution. The framers were intent to prevent a democracy.
Then you are quite satisfied with the election of the president as democratic. Good.
You recognize that the power of government is not dependent on the whims of a current era, that individual rights are many, and government powers are limited.
It refers to a form of governance, one unlike our republic. While we use democratic principles, we do not govern
N
niceatheist
Guest
The term doesn’t have to be in the constitution. Heck, the term isn’t even in the British Constitution (a more nebulous entity than the US constitution to be sure). But that does not make either country something other than a democracy.
This whole “the US is a republic not a democracy” has always been a rather bizarre splitting of hairs. The Framers certainly intended checks and balances, even on voters, but the fact is that even in the original formulation, the House of Representatives was elected, the Senate was chosen by the assemblies in the several states, and the President was elected by Electors elected by the eligible citizens in those several states. So yes, the US was a democracy at its foundation, and it is a democracy today. It is a representative democracy, with Congress elected by direct elections, and the President via the aforementioned indirect elections.
This whole “the US is a republic not a democracy” has always been a rather bizarre splitting of hairs. The Framers certainly intended checks and balances, even on voters, but the fact is that even in the original formulation, the House of Representatives was elected, the Senate was chosen by the assemblies in the several states, and the President was elected by Electors elected by the eligible citizens in those several states. So yes, the US was a democracy at its foundation, and it is a democracy today. It is a representative democracy, with Congress elected by direct elections, and the President via the aforementioned indirect elections.
Well, at least you are consistent. You state here that a direct plebiscite is not necessary for our current system of presidents election to be considered democratic.
N
niceatheist
Guest
Look, my whole argument boils down to the fact that the Framers didn’t consider the United States a democracy, in the Classical sense of the word. But then again, there isn’t a country in the world that is governed under the Classical definition of democracy. There’s strong arguments to suggest that direct democracy as a fundamental form of government (as opposed to issue-specific plebiscites like Switzerland and a number of US states have) probably wouldn’t scale up well enough to even run a moderately-sized city. Even the Athenian model still had an executive of sorts, though a divided one unlike the modern notion of an executive branch that evolved more on the Roman model.niceatheist:
Well, at least you are consistent. You state here that a direct plebiscite is not necessary for our current system of presidents election to be considered democratic.
In reality, while the Athenian democracy was a sort of an ideal, I think the Framers to some extent reproduced the Westminister model as it stood in the late 18th century; a bicameral legislature, independent courts, and an an executive that was still at least theoretically answerable to both. It was a model familiar to them, and one that to one degree or another the colonial governments had created. There’s even a vestige of “confidence” in the Senate’s power to approve cabinet members.
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
I don’t understand why you think this matters.
Well, they certainly failed. I doubt this is true anyway. Their words betray their democratic ambitions, regardless of whether or not they opposed democracy. As the ultimate bourgeois revolution, the American revolution certainly led to the establishment of democracy in the USA, and certainly held itself to democratic ideals and democratic concepts.
Trump was definitely elected democratically, yes.
I’d say the idea of individual and abstract rights, granted independent of the actual concrete circumstances of a person’s life, are what democracy is based on. Every man is an abstract citizen, granted with inalienable and abstract rights, most importantly the right to vote.
What is the difference then? What makes the UK a democracy but the US not? The distinction always seemed to be a stupid “Americanism” to me, just yanks employing the word “democracy” (and “republic”) in a way that ignores all historical precedent and the existence of a world outside of the US. When actually questioned on it, people who actually believe the US isn’t a democracy just end up describing representative democracy as if it’s a uniquely American thing in the modern world, and as if “direct democracy” as some tyranny of the majority where a referendum is held on all legislative matters actually exists or has existed anywhere.
- Status