Democracy? I think not!

[justanoldvet]

I’m not sure if this belongs here or not… but here goes…

This one drives me up a tree, especially since I find myself pondering it more and more, what with all the election foolishness. Why does everyone refer to the United States and its government as a Democracy? When it was clearly in the Constitution to be a REPUBLIC?

My dictionary definitions are quite distinct and specific for each
form of government :

      republic  -   a   state   with    sovereign   power   vested   in
                  representatives of  the people, chosen  by  them  and
                  responsible to them

      democracy - ruled by the people

Now, seems to me that everyone, especially the media and politicians that should know better, should cease and desist referring to the United States as DEMOCRATIC" unless we actually take steps to change “our” system of government. It annoys the hell out of me that so blatant an error is continually repeated, thereby seeming to give validity to the damn thing.

Consider, if you will, that even school children should know the difference. The fact the U.S. is a Republic; It is even clearly stated in the recited daily in schools across the nation - Pledge of Allegiance ( as we learned it way back when in my day ) :

       I pledge  allegiance  to  the  flag,  of  the United  States  of
       America, and  TO  THE  REPUBLIC  for which it stands, one  
       Nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

If further evidence is required, I submit the following:

    ARTICLE IV    RELATION OF THE STATES TO EACH OTHER

    Section 4.    The United States shall guarantee to  every  State  in
    this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall  protect  each of 
    them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the 
    Executive (when the  Legislature  cannot  be  convened)  against domestic 
    Violence.

So, once and for all, isn’t it time to lay to rest this obvious , glaring and foolish error?

[Czarcasm]

Actually, I believe the U.S. is a Representative Democracy.

[Frank]

Under what circumstances would a republic not be democratic?

Seems to me that you are positing a situation where the people as a mass vote on everything - from the minimum wage law to approving the Ambassador to Outer Slobbovia to declaring war.

That is, certainly, a potential system of government; I don’t believe that it is required to term a government democratic. It’s not an either/or situation. Am I misunderstanding you?

[Ravenman]

My dictionary (dictionary.com) says that a democracy is:

1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

The American Heritage Dictionary has a very similar definition.

I see the point that the US isn’t a pure democracy, but in a world in which a pure democracy doesn’t exist, I think we all know that France and Britain and the US are all democracies, even though we have slightly different flavors of representation, and I don’t think anyone is being fooled into thinking any of those countries are pure democracies.

It’s like how that melon we Americans sometimes eat is always called a cantaloupe, but really ought to be called a musk melon, but everyone knows what a cantaloupe is. One can say we ought to call it a musk melon, and I suppose you’d be right, but if you told your wife to pick up a cantaloupe at the store, she’d still buy the same damn thing. So what’s the point in getting upset that people don’t call it a musk melon?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Frank

Under what circumstances would a republic not be democratic?

I always had the impression a Republic was a state who considered the highest authority to be the state itself, i.e. no mention (even ceremonially) of the divine right of kings or any recognition of any authority external to the state. The People’s Republic of China, I’d say, is a republic but not a democracy.

And I guess Canada is a democracy but not a republic, using “democracy” in the less-than-extreme sense of having the citizens vote on every issue. Actually, if endless plebiscites is the to be considered the only true form of democracy, then I’d guess that democracy doesn’t exist and has never existed in any group of humans larger than 100 or so.

I’m personally hoping to see the Republic of Canada in my lifetime, after we ditch all the ceremonial monarchist trappings. Australia may lead the way for us.

[Derleth]

justanoldvet: Oh, for the love of Locke and Samuel Johnson!

The definition of “democracy” you seem to be using is easily one of the stupidest things you were taught in Middle School Civics. It is a useless word for a useless system that has no real-world relevance to understanding governments.

Aside from that, the definition cripples the ability to easily classify existing governments in a way that makes sense. For example, America obviously has more in common with Iran than it has with Canada because America and Iran both fall under the header of “Republic” while Canada is a “Monarchy”. Only a pedant would have enough native idiocy to dream that one up; a six-week-old mewling kitten raised in a dark room could see right through it. Obviously, the first cut must be between Democracy and Other, with “Other” ranging from Oligarchy to Despotism.

But, as I mentioned before, that obvious first cut is impossible if you think Democracy must needs mean Direct Democracy in all circumstances and never refer to Representative Democracy, also called Republicanism. Someone who thinks that might as well deny that blue houses can be called “houses”. It makes just as much sense.

[justanoldvet]

@Czarcasm

Actually, I believe the U.S. is a Representative Democracy.

I believe it is -supposed to be such… but I also don’t believe it actually achieves this goal.

[justanoldvet]

@Frank

Under what circumstances would a republic not be democratic?

Seems to me that you are positing a situation where the people as a mass vote on everything - from the minimum wage law to approving the Ambassador to Outer Slobbovia to declaring war.

That is, certainly, a potential system of government; I don’t believe that it is required to term a government democratic. It’s not an either/or situation. Am I misunderstanding you?

I’m not sure if you are misunderstanding me, or if I am being unclear, since , to be honest, part of the reason I posted this is to get different viewpoints and generate discussion, in order to help me clarify my own beliefs.

Technologically, I don’t see any reason we -couldn’t- have a true Democracy, where in any and all interested parties could vote on any given subject, from , to use your examples, min. wage to the Ambassador to Outer Slobbovia. I think my biggest problem is that we, the seething masses, DON’T have a say in so much of what is done in our name, from the War, to <insert tedious example here>

I admit freely I am … less than clear… on exactly what I think America is… but I do not think it is a Democracy. To my understanding, a Republic considers itself ( The Gov. ) to be the highest authority. Is this not the case in America? Consider the “secret Courts”, “secret warrants”, “star-chamber-ish” methodoligies used ( especially post 9/11 ), etc.
Even using your example: every year the members of Gov. vote themselves raises… but when was the last time min. Wage was raised? It is commonly accepted that there are two justice systems: one for those that are wealthy/connected/in power, and one for the poor schlub … and the two are extremely different.

Every day, “The Powers That Be” make choices that effect the populace, in which we have no say whatsoever. At times I am reminded of a High School Student government: we get the small, window dressing choices… but the ones that really matter are made for us, by those that presume to know what is best for us.
You see my point, I trust/ hope?

As I said: I’m hoping to generate discussion, in part to help me figure out what I really do believe in this matter.

[Captain_Amazing]

@justanoldvet

Even using your example: every year the members of Gov. vote themselves raises… but when was the last time min. Wage was raised?

Just as a data point, the minimum wage was last raised in July of 2007.

[justanoldvet]

@Derleth

justanoldvet: Oh, for the love of Locke and Samuel Johnson!

The definition of “democracy” you seem to be using is easily one of the stupidest things you were taught in Middle School Civics. It is a useless word for a useless system that has no real-world relevance to understanding governments.

Aside from that, the definition cripples the ability to easily classify existing governments in a way that makes sense. For example, America obviously has more in common with Iran than it has with Canada because America and Iran both fall under the header of “Republic” while Canada is a “Monarchy”. Only a pedant would have enough native idiocy to dream that one up; a six-week-old mewling kitten raised in a dark room could see right through it. Obviously, the first cut must be between Democracy and Other, with “Other” ranging from Oligarchy to Despotism.

But, as I mentioned before, that obvious first cut is impossible if you think Democracy must needs mean Direct Democracy in all circumstances and never refer to Representative Democracy, also called Republicanism. Someone who thinks that might as well deny that blue houses can be called “houses”. It makes just as much sense.

Perhaps it would be useful if you understood where I am coming from, and why I find it… confusing.

Was raised in an orphanage, which provided my education. From there I went into the Marines, then transfered to the Navy. my entire life has been spent , more or less, in systems in which everything was black and white, no gray areas. Either a thing is… or it isn’t. College, with it’s shades of gray, numerous viewpoints and the like got me thinking… really thinking about things, for the first time. now, as an old fart, I find myself questioning things I used to believe without question. America as a Democracy is one of those things.

Intellectually, I understand that a large population base makes Direct Democracy problematic ( but, with technology available today, certainly not impossible! ) . My “problem” is that it appears to me that “we the people” actually have little or no say in most, if not all, of the genuinely important things that effect our daily lives. For example: in Ca. the people voted to make marijuanna legal for medical use. The Feds said , in effect’ that’s fine. but we still consider it an illegal drug, and what you say/voted doesn’t mean squat’. That’s just the first example that comes to mind: there are literally countless others.

In my opinion, America is a LOT closer to a Republic ( wherein the highest authority is the State, not the People ) than a Democracy, wherein the People are the highest authority.

[Giles]

@justanoldvet

Even using your example: every year the members of Gov. vote themselves raises… but when was the last time min. Wage was raised?

If you are talking about the federal government of the US, annual giving of raises to themselves is unconstitutional, under the 27th amendment. And there is widespread popular support for a low minimum wage, for various reasons, including the fact that most voters aren’t on the minimum wage.

[justanoldvet]

@Captain Amazing

Just as a data point, the minimum wage was last raised in July of 2007.

Shot myself in the foot with that on, huh?

Really though… in considering the disparity between min. wage ( which is by no means a “living wage” ). and what the average politician pulls in, or even the yearly increase … and you get what I was trying to say.

It seems every year the disparity between the haves and have nots get wider… In my life time, I’ve seen the “middle class” virtually vanish.

[tomndebb]

The form of government of the U.S. is that of a republic.

However, a republic may still impose severe limitations on the persons eligible to vote for representation. As suffrage in the U.S. has continued to expand, being extended to those who do not own land, to women, to persons regardless of race or belief, and with the abolition of slavery, the philosophical underpinnings of the government have moved toward that of a democracy.

During WWII, one of the great propaganda efforts was to refer to the Allies as democracies (ruled by the people) in contrast to the Axis which was presumably dominated by dictatorships. As WWII segued into the Cold War, that rhetoric was maintained for the same reasons and most people, today, view any government deriving its powers from the people, generally, as a (philosophical) democracy, regardless of its form.

[ianzin]

If you are interested in what would constitute a genuine democracy, and whether the US or the UK or any other ‘democracy’ actually is one, you would do well to look up Kenneth Arrow and his academic work concerning ‘rational collective choice’. As ever, there’s a Wikepedia page that might be a useful starting poinit.

In very, very simple terms, he started by listing some axioms that you would expect of a democratic voting system (Example: if everyone prefers A to B, and everyone prefers B to C, then the voting system should be able to reflect the fact that everyone prefers A to C). He then proved, mathematically, that there was no voting system or procedure that satisfied all of these axioms. Naturally, this work is controversial and has been revisited and reviled many times since he first published it.

It sounds dry and academic, and it is (from what I’ve read), but it’s interesting nonetheless.

[tomndebb]

@Giles

If you are talking about the federal government of the US, annual giving of raises to themselves is unconstitutional, under the 27th amendment.

Of course, that did nothing to stop Congress from preemptively giving themselves (cost of living) raises. With a movement to authorize the 190 year dormant Amendment starting up in 1982, they simply passed a law in 1989 in such a way that in the succeeding term the raises would be automatic, requiring an affirmative action to forestall the automatic increase–a vote they seem to have been loathe to support in the ensuing years. When the Amendment was ratified in 1992, it was not deemed to have affected the CoL Adjustment that was already law. In fairness, the congresscritters did vote to decline the CoLA , at least from 1993 to 2000. Since then the vote has been a bit spottier, but until the law is changed or challenged, the 27th Amendment is a joke.

[Sophistry_and_Illusion]

@justanoldvet

In my opinion, America is a LOT closer to a Republic ( wherein the highest authority is the State, not the People ) than a Democracy, wherein the People are the highest authority.

Well, in the Federalist Papers, the authors explicitly argue that the Founding Fathers didn’t want a direct democracy and thought it would be disastrous and short-lived. They thought the only government that allowed the people a voice but would not lead the new nation headlong into disaster was a republic. The elected leaders are supposed to be better informed than the electorate and more capable of making rational and dispassionate decisions that serve the best interests of the nation. (“Ha!” you are no doubt thinking, but that was the reasoning.)

[justanoldvet]

@tomndebb

The form of government of the U.S. is that of a republic.

However, a republic may still impose severe limitations on the persons eligible to vote for representation. As suffrage in the U.S. has continued to expand, being extended to those who do not own land, to women, to persons regardless of race or belief, and with the abolition of slavery, the philosophical underpinnings of the government have moved toward that of a democracy.

During WWII, one of the great propaganda efforts was to refer to the Allies as democracies (ruled by the people) in contrast to the Axis which was presumably dominated by dictatorships. As WWII segued into the Cold War, that rhetoric was maintained for the same reasons and most people, today, view any government deriving its powers from the people, generally, as a (philosophical) democracy, regardless of its form.

Please tell me you are a teacher in the public school system; I -know- you are an educator.

( if it wasn’t clear, that’s a compliment )

Actually… I genuinely believe the folks on here , or a vast majority of them, would make damned fine -educators- I’ve probably learned more in the 6-7 months I lurked here than in nearly a decade of collage, in terms of actual, usable knowledge. Ok… maybe a slight exaggeration… but nonetheless…

[justanoldvet]

@ianzin

If you are interested in what would constitute a genuine democracy, and whether the US or the UK or any other ‘democracy’ actually is one, you would do well to look up Kenneth Arrow and his academic work concerning ‘rational collective choice’. As ever, there’s a Wikepedia page that might be a useful starting poinit.

In very, very simple terms, he started by listing some axioms that you would expect of a democratic voting system (Example: if everyone prefers A to B, and everyone prefers B to C, then the voting system should be able to reflect the fact that everyone prefers A to C). He then proved, mathematically, that there was no voting system or procedure that satisfied all of these axioms. Naturally, this work is controversial and has been revisited and reviled many times since he first published it.

It sounds dry and academic, and it is (from what I’ve read), but it’s interesting nonetheless.

I will most certainly look into this; I -LIKE- mathematical and dry
Thank you

[justanoldvet]

@Sophistry and Illusion

Well, in the Federalist Papers, the authors explicitly argue that the Founding Fathers didn’t want a direct democracy and thought it would be disastrous and short-lived. They thought the only government that allowed the people a voice but would not lead the new nation headlong into disaster was a republic. The elected leaders are supposed to be better informed than the electorate and more capable of making rational and dispassionate decisions that serve the best interests of the nation. (“Ha!” you are no doubt thinking, but that was the reasoning.)

But…

Back then, only White, Land Owning Males could vote… which, to my way of thinking, would make a Democracy utterly impossible in any case, as it disenfranchised so much of the population.

No ?

[justanoldvet]

@tomndebb

Of course, that did nothing to stop Congress from preemptively giving themselves (cost of living) raises. With a movement to authorize the 190 year dormant Amendment starting up in 1982, they simply passed a law in 1989 in such a way that in the succeeding term the raises would be automatic, requiring an affirmative action to forestall the automatic increase–a vote they seem to have been loathe to support in the ensuing years. When the Amendment was ratified in 1992, it was not deemed to have affected the CoL Adjustment that was already law. In fairness, the congresscritters did vote to decline the CoLA , at least from 1993 to 2000. Since then the vote has been a bit spottier, but until the law is changed or challenged, the 27th Amendment is a joke.

A joke wherein we are all the butts thereof, IMNSHFO