By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sc94597 on 19 April 2014
Edit Thread
BlkPaladin said:

I wonder what they are teaching in school now a days. The US was never a democracy, it was never intended to be a democracy. The US was set up as a Republic, hence the name "The Republic of the United States of America", based off of the the Roman form of government. (Democracy is from the Greek city states period) A republic isn't a democracy, the founders of the nation did everything in their power to make sure that the common citizen couldn't directly affect political discussion, because they knew it would become a popularity contest since most people don't know the qualities needed to make a good leader. (The last three presidential choices prove them correct.)

Originally the president wasn't voted in by the public but select members of each political party. The system is kind of still used today, but the system today is something that was never intended. The voting process is nothing more than a sham to make people think their vote counts. What they are voting for is who is going to vote. (Each party chooses anonymous representatives in each state and depending on the state laws some or all of the party's representatives will vote. The kicker is they don't have to vote for their party's candidate. Which is one of the reason why an independent or smaller party (Communist, Green, etc) will never be voted in.

Though the way it is left it susceptible to being controlled by the elite rich, which wasn't as big of a deal back then because usually the rich were the only ones who had an education past 6th/8th grade. So in reality the voting system, and the government itself needs to be overhauled from the top down.

Republic (res publica - "public affair")  just means that the government is a public (not a private, i.e monarchy) responsibility. This means the people are recognized as the ultimate sovereigns, not a king or parliament or congress. The representative vs. pure democratic system is a separate matter entirely. 

I agree with much of what you say, except this: 

"because they knew it would become a popularity contest since most people don't know the qualities needed to make a good leader."

If we are to assume that they were republicans, then they precisely believed the opposite. That is the principle basis for why they chose the representative system. However, they also understood that mob rule was unstable and led to an abridgement of the rights of individuals (the founders weren't only republicans but also (classical) liberals), and that is why they chose a representative and not a direct democracy (among other more functional reasons, such as efficiency.) 

Now not all republics must be democracies. Some are oligarchies (the modern U.S is a good example.)  Some countries with democratic systems are also not republics, at least in name (UK, Spain, Japan for example.) Today this isn't very true, but historically soveriegnty was shared between the monarch and the public, or entirely in the hands of the monarch. 

In the United States conservatives have been using the term republic to mean "liberal democracy." Which means a system in which all people have representation in the legislature of their government, but are limited by liberal rights theory (the mob cannot decide illiberal legislation.) 


To summarize, in the United States:

Constitutional Republic = Liberal Democracy = A system of government in which the democratic elections (either representative or direct) are limited in the case in which they are illiberal. This is cemented by either a constitution or a charter (i.e Bill of Rights, Magna Carta.) 

Representative Democracy = What you described, when the representatives do not have to vote according to the wishes of the electors. 

Oligarchy = Rule of a small subset of the population. 

Republic (outside the U.S and among academics) = Public government.