US: democracy vs republic

[angrysoba]

That's a stupidly broad definition. That makes military dictatorships and aristocraties and oligarchies republics!

It’s a simple definition. I don’t see what is stupid about it.

 

[bruto]

If the Senate were to be determined by popular vote, then that would reduce the power of the individual states. Even as a card carrying democrat, I wouldn't want California and New York to have more power.

Representing each state equally instead of each person equally doesn't make it less democratic.

I would disagree. This does not mean it's bad, or worse than other ideas, but if it changes the power of an individual vote, I think it can reasonably be said to be "less democratic."

 

[Horhang]

I have a question about this phrase: "The United States was founded as a republic, not a democracy."

I think my first reaction was to go the dictionary but there does not appear to be a special US definition of those words. A bit more googling reveals that the phrase has it’s origin in the federalist papers. At the time, republic and democracies hardly existed and the words had not yet received their current meaning.

What I don't get it is why the phrase - centuries later - keeps being thrown around as if it had a sensible contemporary meaning. What are kids in the US taught about the subject?

Ignoring all of the rest of the discussion, what is usually taught, or was when I taught history, is that the US is a representative democracy. We vote for people to represent us. Little is made of the definition/attributes of a republic. We vote for people to represent us. Those elected representatives then do what they do, we have little recourse other than to elect someone else. This is what was, and to the best of my knowledge, still is taught about the form of government and how it is labeled.

There may be errors in the quoted post. I screen tapped while typing and attempted to correct as best i could from memory and context. The original is obviously still there.

 

[angrysoba]

I would disagree. This does not mean it's bad, or worse than other ideas, but if it changes the power of an individual vote, I think it can reasonably be said to be "less democratic."

Doesn't that depend on the view of how the Senate is supposed to operate in the US political system?

As a comparison, the EU has 28 member states which get to vote on various issues, as well as a Parliament composed of MEPs which are roughly representative of the population of each country, but with an advantage for smaller nations presumably to balance out the possibility of larger countries such as Germany, France, the UK etc... having too much power. You could argue that the people of Luxembourg and Malta are way over-represented, but really it is a more acceptable balance for those who think each country, rather than each individual member of the EU should have a certain amount of influence.

I think the US is somewhere on the continuum of thinking that states are individual countries and want their state interests represented in the Senate, and of those who argue that the Senate should be represented on a level proportionate to the population of the federal entity of the United States as a whole.

I don't think either is necessarily more democratic than another.

 

[bruto]

Doesn't that depend on the view of how the Senate is supposed to operate in the US political system?

As a comparison, the EU has 28 member states which get to vote on various issues, as well as a Parliament composed of MEPs which are roughly representative of the population of each country, but with an advantage for smaller nations presumably to balance out the possibility of larger countries such as Germany, France, the UK etc... having too much power. You could argue that the people of Luxembourg and Malta are way over-represented, but really it is a more acceptable balance for those who think each country, rather than each individual member of the EU should have a certain amount of influence.

I think the US is somewhere on the continuum of thinking that states are individual countries and want their state interests represented in the Senate, and of those who argue that the Senate should be represented on a level proportionate to the population of the federal entity of the United States as a whole.

I don't think either is necessarily more democratic than another.

I'm not disputing that there are valid reasons for doing things this way, and that the federal nature of the republic changes how representation works. It all depends on how you slice things up. A senate which takes the sovereignty of states into account will not be democratic at the national level A senate which is democratic at the national level will be contrary to the principle of a federation of states. My point being just that simple democracy is not necessarily the highest goal, but that does not mean you should redefine democracy to try to make it fit.

 

[Shadowdweller]

Republic: a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

I'm unsure how a republic can not be a democracy. How can the people hold ultimate power if not by democracy? Don't misunderstand me, lots of countries call themselves a republic that aren't.

Depends on how you define "people". But then again, I suppose so does Democracy. The Roman Empire, for example, operated for many centuries as more of an Aristocracy. Although full citizens could vote, there were vast numbers of non-citizens who lived within the Empire. Furthermore, only patricians could hold (at least the higher) political positions.

 

[Venom]

Representative democracy = republic

 

[psionl0]

Representative democracy = republic

By that definition, the UK is a republic.

 

[erwinl]

Representative democracy = republic

No.

Republic = no kingdom.

Being a republic and having a democratic organization are two different things.

Republic and Kingdom just says something about the person, that is the head of state.
Democracy is one end of a scale on which the other end is One man rule. That one says something about the amount of influence the common people have in the ruling of their country. (with most countries falling somewhere more to the middle on this scale).

So.
Kingdom with democracy = (about) democratic constitutional kingdom
Kingdom with one man rule = absolute monarchy
Republic with democracy = democratic constitutional republic (with president as head of state)
Republic with one man rule = Dictatorship.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I

You say flawed, I say that's the beauty of the system, some power is reserved for the less populated areas of the country.

Gives Iowa and New Hampshire some attention they wouldn't otherwise get.

I'm no longer going to entertain this argument without a formula. Popular vote provides an exact calculation of how much each vote should count for in an election and a philosophical basis for that exact calculation. Provide the same specificity for how much weight should be put on less populated areas.

Otherwise, you are not in the same league of debate. You are intelligent design against evolution.

 

[psionl0]

I

I'm no longer going to entertain this argument without a formula. Popular vote provides an exact calculation of how much each vote should count for in an election and a philosophical basis for that exact calculation. Provide the same specificity for how much weight should be put on less populated areas.

Otherwise, you are not in the same league of debate. You are intelligent design against evolution.

Why do we need a formula? It was all politics.

Under the Articles of Confederation, each state had an equal say in the federal government. The sticking point in the discussions for a new constitution was that the larger states wanted population based representation and the smaller states wanted to retain equal representation. A House of Representatives (based on population based representation) and a Senate (based on equal state representation) was the compromise that was accepted.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Why do we need a formula? It was all politics.

Under the Articles of Confederation, each state had an equal say in the federal government. The sticking point in the discussions for a new constitution was that the larger states wanted population based representation and the smaller states wanted to retain equal representation. A House of Representatives (based on population based representation) and a Senate (based on equal state representation) was the compromise that was accepted.

bobdroege7 is not making a specific claim thatitwas a political solution. That person described a system that gives disproportionate power to different regions as a "beauty."

That seems like for an argument that such a system is good rather than political necessity. Also, your argument says nothing about why that system should continue now (or apply to somewhere other than the US).

 

[psionl0]

bobdroege7 is not making a specific claim thatitwas a political solution. That person described a system that gives disproportionate power to different regions as a "beauty."

That seems like for an argument that such a system is good rather than political necessity. Also, your argument says nothing about why that system should continue now (or apply to somewhere other than the US).

This issue has been argued many times in the political forums. The only thing to add here is that it is not a mathematical issue.

(As a non-Sydney resident, I think that equal state representation is a good thing).

 

[BobTheCoward]

This issue has been argued many times in the political forums. The only thing to add here is that it is not a mathematical issue.

(As a non-Sydney resident, I think that equal state representation is a good thing).

If someone had the position that each region should have one vote for chief executive we can interrogate that position. But if someone says it should be between that and popular vote, that person doesn't have a position. They have an undefined mess.

 

[Belz...]

It’s a simple definition. I don’t see what is stupid about it.

What if I define "shoe" as something you wear? Isn't that stupidly broad, given how "shoe" is usually used for?

 

[theprestige]

What if I define "shoe" as something you wear? Isn't that stupidly broad, given how "shoe" is usually used for?

It depends. Do you intend a conclusion about republics to follow from your premise about shoes?

 

[angrysoba]

What if I define "shoe" as something you wear? Isn't that stupidly broad, given how "shoe" is usually used for?

If that's how you define it, then you are welcome to it. However, making up your own personal definitions is what is stupid about it. If millions of people share the definition and know what you mean when you use the word then it is not stupid.

In a British context, for example, republic means, as far as I can tell, simply a country without a monarch. So yes, that can include dictatorships. We essentially had one of those in England between Charles I losing his head and the restoration of the monarchy of Charles II. Oliver Cromwell's England is often referred to as a republic, but his style was basically a military dictator, and when he died his son took over.

 

[Belz...]

If that's how you define it, then you are welcome to it. However, making up your own personal definitions is what is stupid about it. If millions of people share the definition and know what you mean when you use the word then it is not stupid.

In a British context, for example, republic means, as far as I can tell, simply a country without a monarch. So yes, that can include dictatorships.

Sorry, I reserve the right to call a definition used by millions "stupid" if I think it's stupid. Popularity has nothing to do with it.

 

[angrysoba]

Sorry, I reserve the right to call a definition used by millions "stupid" if I think it's stupid.

Call it stupid if you like. You can also yell at clouds if you think they look stupid.

Popularity has nothing to do with it.

It has everything to do with it. Where do you think words get their meaning if not through common use?

 

[Belz...]

Call it stupid if you like. You can also yell at clouds if you think they look stupid.

You are aware that "stupid" is a judgment call, right? It's not an objective measure. I find it stupid because it is ridiculously broad. In regular usage, republics do not include autocracies. Why have a term refer to two different set on the exact same topic?

It has everything to do with it. Where do you think words get their meaning if not through common use?

With the fact that it's stupid, not the fact that it's a definition. You didn't read my post properly.

 

[angrysoba]

You are aware that "stupid" is a judgment call, right?

Yuh-huh! No one is claiming you have no right to call it stupid. You get that?

It's not an objective measure. I find it stupid because it is ridiculously broad. In regular usage, republics do not include autocracies. Why have a term refer to two different set on the exact same topic?

It depends on whose regular usage you are talking about. I have already given you a perfectly good example of regular usage in which a republic referred to a country with no monarch, but with a military dictator at its head. It was called the Protectorate. And yes, British people will call other countries such as Iran, or Pakistan republics, even if they are autocratic theocracies in the case of Iran, or periodically military dictatorships as in the case of Pakistan.

With the fact that it's stupid, not the fact that it's a definition. You didn't read my post properly.

No, you didn't write it properly. If that is what you meant, that is what you should have written. You can't blame me for reading comprehension problems if you criticize me for failing to read what you didn't even write.

Besides, the point still stands, the word "republic" simply refers to a country with no monarch in common British usage, as in "what do you call a country with no monarch? A republic!" It's not stupid if it has a function.

But anyway, Belz... what do you call a country with no monarch?

 

[Belz...]

Yuh-huh! No one is claiming you have no right to call it stupid. You get that?

No but it was implied that it was incorrect to do so, which is nonsense.

It depends on whose regular usage you are talking about. I have already given you a perfectly good example of regular usage in which a republic referred to a country with no monarch, but with a military dictator at its head. It was called the Protectorate. And yes, British people will call other countries such as Iran, or Pakistan republics, even if they are autocratic theocracies in the case of Iran, or periodically military dictatorships as in the case of Pakistan.

You mean British people in general, or certain publications? I've never heard the term used that way before this thread.

No, you didn't write it properly. If that is what you meant, that is what you should have written. You can't blame me for reading comprehension problems if you criticize me for failing to read what you didn't even write.

Soba, come on. The post reads: Sorry, I reserve the right to call a definition used by millions "stupid" if I think it's stupid. Popularity has nothing to do with it.

There is no way that the closing "it" refers to anything other than the action of calling it stupid. It's not poorly written; you've added information on top of the post that wasn't there and drew an incorrect conclusion because of this.

It's not stupid if it has a function.

I'd agree on principle, except that there's this little "Windows" key on my keyboard which proves you wrong.

But anyway, Belz... what do you call a country with no monarch?

Depends on the system. I've never needed a single term for all of them, especially since monarchies have become much rarer nowadays.

 

[angrysoba]

You mean British people in general, or certain publications?

British people in general. In fact, maybe not only British people. I haven't checked whether Japanese people, for example, consider "kyowakoku" to be simply a country without a monarch, or a country with other attributes.

Soba, come on. The post reads: Sorry, I reserve the right to call a definition used by millions "stupid" if I think it's stupid. Popularity has nothing to do with it.

There is no way that the closing "it" refers to anything other than the action of calling it stupid. It's not poorly written; you've added information on top of the post that wasn't there and drew an incorrect conclusion because of this.

It's a pointless quibble. I pointed out that words derive meaning by popular use, and distinguishing it from your personal use of "shoe". You handwaved it away. In that context, you need to be clearer about what you are talking about. Besides, I am saying that the definition has a purpose.

Depends on the system.
I've never needed a single term for all of them,

That's stupide!

especially since monarchies have become much rarer nowadays.

What? Is Canada, the country where you live, a republic? Is the United Kingdom, the country where I was born, a republic? Is Japan, the country where I live and where your wife is from, a republic? I would say they are common enough that we spend most of our time in them.

 

[Belz...]

It's a pointless quibble. I pointed out that words derive meaning by popular use, and distinguishing it from your personal use of "shoe". You handwaved it away.

Handwaved it? In what way? I believe I've addressed all of your points so far.

That's stupide!

Eille, tabarnaque!

But seriously, I don't need a single word to lump together democracies and autocracies.

What? Is Canada, the country where you live, a republic? Is the United Kingdom, the country where I was born, a republic? Is Japan, the country where I live and where your wife is from, a republic? I would say they are common enough that we spend most of our time in them.

They're all representative democracies, so yes. In addition, they're all constitutional monarchies. Clearly the words aren't mutually-exclusive.

 

[angrysoba]

Handwaved it? In what way? I believe I've addressed all of your points so far.

It means the comparison is bad. Your personal use of shoe can be completely disregarded as nobody else uses it that way. A commonly used word that has an understood meaning is not on the same par.

Eille, tabarnaque!

Is that not extremely rude Quebec French?

But seriously, I don't need a single word to lump together democracies and autocracies.

It doesn't lump together ALL democracies and autocracies. Only those without a monarch as head of state.

They're all representative democracies, so yes.

So yes, what?

In addition, they're all constitutional monarchies. Clearly the words aren't mutually-exclusive.

Which words are not mutually-exclusive?

 

[ahhell]

Republic and Monarchy are mutually exclusive. Neither is exclusive of democracy however.

The venn diagram of those three terms is republic overlaps with democracy and democracy overlaps with monarchy. If you add in dictatorship then that overlaps with republic and monarchy. I suppose you could make an argument for dictatorship overlapping with democracy but its hard to do. Singapore and Turkey could be fairly described as authoritarian democracies.

 

[angrysoba]

Is Canada, the country where you live, a republic? Is the United Kingdom, the country where I was born, a republic? Is Japan, the country where I live and where your wife is from, a republic? I would say they are common enough that we spend most of our time in them.

They're all representative democracies, so yes. In addition, they're all constitutional monarchies. Clearly the words aren't mutually-exclusive.

No, that's 100% wrong. Constitutional monarchies such as Japan, UK, Canada, etc... are NOT republics. None of them are.

Also, it is 100% stupid to have no distinction between republic and democracy.

 

[Belz...]

It means the comparison is bad. Your personal use of shoe can be completely disregarded as nobody else uses it that way. A commonly used word that has an understood meaning is not on the same par.

In light of what you've posted, I retract the comparison, then.

Is that not extremely rude Quebec French?

It's both extremely rude and extremely standard. We say it every other word.

It doesn't lump together ALL democracies and autocracies. Only those without a monarch as head of state.

I stand corrected. My general point stands, though: I don't need a term that lumps all those together.

So yes, what?

So yes they're republics.

Which words are not mutually-exclusive?

Republic and monarchy.

 

[Belz...]

Also, it is 100% stupid to have no distinction between republic and democracy.

Indeed. One is a subset of the other.

 

[psionl0]

If someone had the position that each region should have one vote for chief executive we can interrogate that position. But if someone says it should be between that and popular vote, that person doesn't have a position. They have an undefined mess.

It's a good thing that I am not that "someone".

 

[bobdroege7]

I

I'm no longer going to entertain this argument without a formula. Popular vote provides an exact calculation of how much each vote should count for in an election and a philosophical basis for that exact calculation. Provide the same specificity for how much weight should be put on less populated areas.

Otherwise, you are not in the same league of debate. You are intelligent design against evolution.

Well you are talking like direct election of everything is a good thing.

Maybe

Maybe not

Pretty hard to change the election of Senators to popular national vote, as you would have to have all the states with two or fewer Congressmen and West Virginia to agree to losing representation so that the ideal of popular vote could happen.

As far as intelligent design versus evolution, well the creator is in the declaration of independence, so you have that working against you too.

Could have been Gore, Obama and Clinton as the last three presidents, no second Iraq war and Hussein still in power there.

But probably no great recession either, taxes higher and a balanced budget.

That's if you expand the argument to the popular vote of the president.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Well you are talking like direct election of everything is a good thing.

Maybe

Maybe not

Pretty hard to change the election of Senators to popular national vote, as you would have to have all the states with two or fewer Congressmen and West Virginia to agree to losing representation so that the ideal of popular vote could happen.

As far as intelligent design versus evolution, well the creator is in the declaration of independence, so you have that working against you too.

Could have been Gore, Obama and Clinton as the last three presidents, no second Iraq war and Hussein still in power there.

But probably no great recession either, taxes higher and a balanced budget.

That's if you expand the argument to the popular vote of the president.

The post you are quoting is not in support of popular vote. It was only stated as a position that is formal.

 

[ahhell]

So yes they're republics.


Republic and monarchy.

Indeed. One is a subset of the other.

You are absolutely wrong. A republic is not a monarchy the terms are mutually exclusive of one another. While you may not need a term that lumps autocracy and democracies in the same category, others need a term that means, "Not a Monarchy." Which incidentally lumps those categories together. And of course, more importantly, nobody needs a term that means one thing to you but something different to most everyone else.


You are of course allowed to have such an idiosyncratic definition, just be prepared to be misunderstood if you ever use it in conversation, and be prepared to misunderstand others when they do.

 

[Belz...]

You are absolutely wrong. A republic is not a monarchy the terms are mutually exclusive of one another. While you may not need a term that lumps autocracy and democracies in the same category, others need a term that means, "Not a Monarchy." Which incidentally lumps those categories together. And of course, more importantly, nobody needs a term that means one thing to you but something different to most everyone else.


You are of course allowed to have such an idiosyncratic definition, just be prepared to be misunderstood if you ever use it in conversation, and be prepared to misunderstand others when they do.

Except that a Republic is often defined as a democracy with elected representatives, which absolutely fits several constitutional monarchies. It's not idiosyncratic. It's just not the one you like.

 

[angrysoba]

Except that a Republic is often defined as a democracy with elected representatives, which absolutely fits several constitutional monarchies. It's not idiosyncratic. It's just not the one you like.

Nope! Canada, UK and Japan are never defined as republics. If they were there wouldn't be republican movements in them.

Citizens for a Canadian Republic (French: Citoyens et Citoyennes pour une République Canadienne) (CCR) is a Canadian advocacy group founded in 2002 that advocates the replacement of the Canadian monarchy with a head of state who would either be chosen through a general election or elected by the Parliament of Canada.[1][2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_for_a_Canadian_Republic

Republicanism in the United Kingdom is the political movement that seeks to replace the United Kingdom's monarchy with a republic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_Kingdom

The Australian Republic Movement (ARM) is a non-partisan member-based organisation campaigning for Australia to become an independent republic with an Australian as head of state. Australian constitutional law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Republic_Movement

New Zealand Republic Inc.[2] is an organisation formed in 1994 whose object is to support the creation of a New Zealand republic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Republic

Of course, according to you, and probably nobody else on Earth, these countries are already republics! LOL!

 

[Belz...]

Of course, according to you, and probably nobody else on Earth, these countries are already republics! LOL!

"Lol" is such a great argument.

The definitions of Republic have already been posted here (see post 14), and the one I'm familiar with, which is the second one on the list, absolutely includes Canada since it defines it as a representative democracy.

It's one thing to note that there's another definition of the word that I wasn't aware of and that other people might be using. It's another thing entirely to pretend like the one I'm using doesn't exist.

 

[angrysoba]

"Lol" is such a great argument.

It's not my argument. LOL!

The definitions of Republic have already been posted here (see post 14), and the one I'm familiar with, which is the second one on the list, absolutely includes Canada since it defines it as a representative democracy.

It's one thing to note that there's another definition of the word that I wasn't aware of and that other people might be using. It's another thing entirely to pretend like the one I'm using doesn't exist.

Show me some evidence that anyone defines Canada, the UK, Japan etc... as a republic. I want to see some specific reputable sources, such as Canadian, British, Japanese government websites, or respected political analysts.

 

[Belz...]

It's not my argument. LOL!

rofl! har! foonee!

Show me some evidence that anyone defines Canada, the UK, Japan etc... as a republic.

Evidence? We've got a definition right there which does. Wasn't I told just yesterday that definitions stem from popular use? Or does that only apply when said definition agrees with you?

 

[angrysoba]

Evidence? We've got a definition right there which does. Wasn't I told just yesterday that definitions stem from popular use? Or does that only apply when said definition agrees with you?

I've asked you to provide evidence that Canada is referred to as a republic, not your personal application of a definition. So far you have not been able to come up with anything. I've shown you that the only popular use of the word republic in relation to Canada is of campaigners to make Canada a republic. Why do you suppose they would do that if, as you believe, Canada is already a republic?

Don't worry. I will wait.

 

[Border Reiver]

rofl! har! foonee!



Evidence? We've got a definition right there which does. Wasn't I told just yesterday that definitions stem from popular use? Or does that only apply when said definition agrees with you?

The definition provided at post #14 would not include Canada. The head of state of Canada is Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada Queen Elizabeth II (and the Captain General of the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery to use her proper title ).

A republic does not have a monarch as a head of state - full stop.

Canada is constitutional monarchy with a democratically elected lower house.