sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:
Actually that was part of his writing on a letter as to why they were going to choose a Republic over a Democracy... basically to prevent "Tyranny of the Majority."
Whether to be a Republic or a Democracy was actually quite a point of contention between the founding fathers.
If you need a direct quote mentioning both as different... again i'll use James Madison from the same long essay.
"Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, -- is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it."
|
So they were using the term 'democracy' to refer to the direct democracies that existed during the ancient period (since the Ancient Greek states are the only ones described as simply 'democracies')? Again, this all seems to be an issue of semantics. Democracies, in the sense he was refering to, wouldn't even work on a large scale (not to mention that they weren't inclusive states, as only certain men were considered human beings).
|
No, he was in general talking about republics which were supposed to protect the minority from the majority.
Afterall you just said a direct democracy couldn't work(back then) and therefore wouldn't be an option.
Also, why wouldn't a "direct democracy" work on a large scale in the modern day?
You'd just need to referendeum everything, which would make sures only laws that were important passed and would make it harder to get through special interest deals.
The only real issue would be well, majority tyranny.
Think about it this way... if the US was a democracy. The US Citizens could elect their representatives with the goal to remove freedom of speech, and could succeed in that goal soley by having having a majority.
