re: Sharpton upset at R Congressman’s claim that US is a Republic, not Democracy

quote:

---

We have a form of democracy

---

So that would mean that the United States is a..... (say it with me if you can guess!)

Democracy!

quote:

---

the type of govt we have is a Republic

---

That too!

quote:

---

Just saying democracy is the worst possible way to describe out system of govt.

---

I'm not sure why you think this is relevant. The OP is about someone saying the United States IS NOT a democracy. Which we can agree is incorrect? It's as easy as that.

The United States IS a Democracy. That's what we're talking about here.

It's a Republic, too. But can you see why that would be irrelevant given the context of some moron saying the United States IS NOT a democracy?

quote:

---

So that would mean that the United States is a..... (say it with me if you can guess!)

Democracy!

---

Quasi democracy. That pesky constitution.

If asked to describe our system, a Democracy isn't very accurate.

A Federal representative constitutional republic would be accurate.

We are constitutional democratic republic
Run by democrats and republicans
I feel like something is missing from how those in charge identify themselves

quote:

---

Quasi democracy. That pesky constitution.

---

Nothing quasi about it.

The existence of a constitution would only mean that we do not have a True Democracy.

You're arguing against someone who is insisting the united states is a true democracy. Can you find this person? Maybe call them up on the phone instead of projecting their arguments onto the entire board?

quote:

---

If asked to describe our system

---

That's not the issue at hand.

Do you have this much trouble following along in your every day life, man?

Come on, just stay on track.

True or False, the United States is a democracy?

This isn't hard.

quote:

---

Its not a true democracy or pure democracy.

quote:

---

Who cares? It's a democracy.

---

---

People in this thread are conflating a half-dozen distinct concepts.

A constitutional government is simply a government that has an overriding set of rules limiting the power of the government, usually including safeguards to ensure compliance with those rules in the form of checks and balances. The "constitution" is USUALLY a written instrument, but CAN be merely a set of fixed norms generally accepted by the population. The antipode of "constitutional democracy" is "pure democracy."

A "constitutional" government USUALLY takes some democratic form (usually some form of "representative democracy"), but there also CAN be constitutional monarchies and even constitutional dictatorships (in the old Roman sense of the word). You could have a constitutional theocracy or a constitutional oligarchy. Leaders might be "elected" in one constitutional system and might assume power by inheritance in another or by divine oracles in another. Hell, theoretically, leaders could be selected by drawing lots or through trial-by-combat, IF that selection method is encoded into a "constitution." The key to being a "constitutional" government is the existence of that overriding set of rules and the checks/balances, NOT the FORM of the government created by that constitution OR the manner in which leaders are selected.

A "democratic" constituional government can take ANY "democratic" organizational form. It can be a direct democracy. It can be a representative democract. It can be a federal system (like ours), a confederation (like Switzerland), or a unitory system (like France).

A LOT of posters seem to be assuming that a "republic" simply MUST either be a federal system OR have a written constitution. Neither assumpton is correct. A "republic" is simply a representative democracy. France has is a "republic," in that it has representative democracy, but it is decidedly NOT a federal system. France's system is unquestionably a unitory system. At the same time, a "republic" need NOT have a "constitution." A good example is the Venetian Republic of the late middle ages.

OUR system is unique (and VERY functional) because it COMBINES so many of these elements in a way that WORKS FOR US.

We have a "written Constitution," which constrains the actions of the government. This certainly distinguishes us from democracies WITHOUT a constitution (few in current times, but common historically) in which "mob rule" was ALWAYS a concern. Think ancient Athens. Some posters are acting as if this trait is what makes us a "republic." It is not. It is simply the trait that distinguishes a government WITH a constitution from a government WITHOUT one. "Limited government" versus "mob rule," if you will. Again, "republic" is not a relevant concept on this point. "Republic" is simply shorthand for "representative democracy."

We also have "Federalism," which shares power/authority between a central government and state governments -- each ostensibly having its own areas of jurisdiction (though the distinction has been fading for 150 years). Some posters also seem to be arguing that "federalism" is what makes us a "republic." Again, no. The world is FULL of representative democracies that are NOT federal. Most are unitary. A few are confederacies. ALL are "republics” because the people elect representatives to govern on their behalf

In short, ours is a "constitutional" system, as compared to a system without a formal constitution. Ours is a "federal" system, as opposed to confederated or unitary systems. Ours is a "representative democracy" (a "republic") as opposed (primarily) to a "direct democracy." It is the COMBINATION of these three DISTINCT concepts that makes OUR "republic" work.

quote:

---

Yikes, man. That's embarrassing.

quote:

---

Define a pure democracy.

---

---

Any democratic form of government (whether direct, representative or otherwise) which is NOT constrained by a formal constitution limiting the scope and power of the government.

quote:

---

(Roger) used to contribute something meaningful to this board a decade ago, now look at you.

---

hmmm

quote:

---

If you have representatives, if you have a constitution, you do not have a real democracy.

quote:

---

Incorrect.

---

---

I must infer that Roger has never taken a PoliSci class in his life.

quote:

---

True Democracy

---

Does this term have any meaning in political science? I think you mean "pure democracy"

quote:

---

If you're going to play so stupid as to act like you don't know that when Al Sharpton or some other leftist argues about this that he is deliberately implying "direct democracy,"

---

I don't think that at all.

I think that they are basically suggesting (incorrectly) that we have a "pure democracy" rather than a "constitutional democracy," with all the limitations inherent in the latter.

Yes, lots of uninformed and/or uneducated people do not understand the distinction. Exploiting those people is what politicians (or all stripes) DO.