When does Democracy become Mob Rule?

[elpadre]

Notwithstanding the yammering of ill informed masses, the United States of America is not a democracy. It is a republic. The will of the majority of the people can be overridden by the courts. e.g., the Gore election theft.

[Paul_in_Qatar]

Please do not think I am ignoring my own thread. I simply am reading and trying to clarify my thoughts on this.

Thank you for all the thoughtful posts.

[erislover]

@elpadre

Notwithstanding the yammering of ill informed masses, the United States of America is not a democracy. It is a republic. The will of the majority of the people can be overridden by the courts. e.g., the Gore election theft.

That is not a facet of a republic but just rule of law by human beings.

I am unsure about the “The US is a Republic!!1!!!” line of thought. It is a democracy by any common understanding of the term inasmuch as the representatives are held accountable by the people’s vote. Democracy does not necessarily mean direct democracy and never has.

Contrast Merriam Webster’s republic 1b and their democracy 1b. The difference, if one can strictly be found, is negligible IMO.

Republic: 1b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law

Democracy: 1b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

What distinction are people wishing to draw here?

[2sense]

“Mr. Chairman, I conceive that the object of the discussion now before us is, whether democracy or despotism be most eligible, I am sure that those who framed the system submitted to our investigations, and those who now support it, intend the establishment and security of the former. The supporters of the Constitution claim the fide of being firm friends of the liberty and the rights of mankind. They say that they consider it as the best means of protecting liberty. We, sir, idolize democracy. Those who oppose it have bestowed eulogiums on monarchy. We prefer this system to any monarchy, because we are convinced that it has a greater tendency to secure our liberty and promote our happiness. We admire it, because we think it a well-regulated democracy. It is recommended to the good people of this country: they are, through us, to declare whether it be such a plan of government as will establish and secure their freedom.”

• Federalist John Marshall to the Virginia ratifying convention. ( June 10, 1788 )

[iamme99]

There’s a good discussion of the differences (or samness) between Republics and Democracies at this Link.

Here’s an excerpt

Another, older definition of the term uses the term “republic” to describe what is commonly called a representative democracy; it restricts the term “democracy” to refer only to direct democracy. See democracy for further discussion of this term usage and its history. Even this usage does not cover the many republics, past and present, that are not democratic at all (though few modern ones admit their lack of democracy).

Using this older meaning, it is said that the United States is a federal republic, not a democracy. (Although most people, including most Americans, call it a democracy, they are using the modern definition, not the older one referred to here). This usage of the term republic was particularly common around the time of the American Founding Fathers. The authors of the United States Constitution intentionally chose what they called a republic for several reasons. For one, it is impractical to collect votes from every citizen on every political issue. In theory, representatives would be more well-informed and less emotional than the general populace. Furthermore, a republic can be contrived to protect against the “tyranny of the majority.” The Federalist Papers outline the idea that pure democracy is actually quite dangerous, because it allows a majority to infringe upon the rights of a minority. By forming what they called a Republic, in which representatives are chosen in many different ways (the President, House, Senate, and state officials are all elected differently), it is more difficult for a majority to control enough of the government to infringe upon a minority

[rodbots]

Not to go too far off on a tangent, but a friend of mine likes to say this:

“A Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for dinner. A Republic is two wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for dinner except lamb isn’t on the menu. Unfortunately, wolves don’t read menus.”

He is of course alluding to the fact that the (US) Constitution is supposed to limit the sorts of things that are allowed to be voted upon (by Congress), but that no one really follows the Constitution, anyway. Perhaps when the mob can get by with ignoring the Constitution is when Democracy (or Republic, or whatever) becomes Mob Rule?

[2sense]

Thanks for sharing the insight of your friend, rodbots. Perhaps next time he makes this pithy observation you can inquire whether he pictures himself a wolf or a sheep and if not the former then how come he hasn’t been eaten. I have questions for you. Who exactly do you mean by “the mob”? Can you give any examples of those who “get by with ignoring the Constitution”? Do you understand that others can honestly interpret that document differently than you?

[Paul_in_Qatar]

Folks, I am flying to Panama in a few hours, so I will be off-line for a week or so.

[elpadre]

What does IMO mean?

[askeptic]

The same as IMHO, just without the humility.

In My Opinion

[SentientMeat]

John Stuart Mill sorted this OP out. A democracy based solely on numerical majority, which does not ensure that minorities are equally represented under the law, is a false democracy.