Do you understand the fact that a republic is a form of democracy?

[goaded]

I'm a bit sick of the stupid "America isn't a democracy, it's a republic" nonsense. (FWIW, Germany, France, and Italy are also republics, the UK, Denmark, and Spain are monarchies; all of them are democracies.)

Democracy:

"Rule by the people, especially as a form of government; either directly or through elected representatives"

"A government under the direct or representative rule of the people of its jurisdiction."

"A state with a democratic system of government."

"Belief in political freedom and equality; the "spirit of democracy"."

Republic:

"A state where sovereignty rests with the people or their representatives, rather than with a monarch or emperor; a country with no monarchy."

"A state, which may or may not be a monarchy, in which the executive and legislative branches of government are separate." (archaic)

The origin of option B

Yes, I understand words have meanings

No, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."

Don't know/see results

Updates

1 mo

As @CrazyGirl2 and @CupcakeTheDestroyer pointed out, there is a definition of Republic which simply states that the ruler is "headed by someone other than a hereditary monarch but whose citizens do not hold real power". Those are not democracies, but if you have real elections, like the US, your republic is definitely a democracy.

[CrazyGirl2]

No. A republic is not necessarily a democracy per se, and a democracy is not necessarily a republic, per se.

The statement “a republic is a form of democracy” is often true when discussing modern Western governments, but it is not true by definition.

A republic is generally a state in which political authority is considered a public matter rather than the private property of a monarch. The head of state is not a hereditary king or queen.

A democracy is a system in which political power ultimately derives from the people, either directly or through elected representatives.

Those are different concepts. They often overlap, but neither requires the other.

Here are some examples:

1.) The former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a republic by name and structure, but it was not a democracy in any meaningful sense.
2.) Modern North Korea officially calls itself a republic, but it is not generally considered democratic.
3.) The United Kingdom is a democracy, but it is not a republic because it has a monarch.
4.) Canada and Australia are democracies but not republics.

The confusion comes from the fact that the United States is both a republic and a democracy. More precisely, it is a constitutional federal republic with a representative democratic system, to be precise.

So if someone asks:

“Do you understand the fact that a republic is a form of democracy?”
The most accurate answer is:

"Not necessarily. Some republics are democracies, and some are not. The terms describe different characteristics of government."

Likewise, the common retort:

“The United States is a republic, not a democracy”

is also incomplete. The United States is both a republic and a democracy because those terms are not mutually exclusive.

I sincerely hope this helps.
Laura. 🤗😘

[goaded]

All the definitions of republic I've seen, at least for usage in the last century or more, say something like "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." (OED).

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, is definitely not democratic, and since there's no way to peacefully depose the leader, it's not much of a republic, either. The hereditary leaders are kings by another name.

Oh, found one!
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic
a) "a form of government in which the power belongs to a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by the leaders and representatives elected by those citizens to govern according to law "
b) "... a country, state, or territory having a republican (see republican entry 2 sense 2a) government"
c) "a country, state, or territory that is headed by someone other than a hereditary monarch but whose citizens do not hold real power"

It goes on to explicitly agree with you that:
"The United States is both a democracy and a republic, as both terms refer to forms of government in which supreme power resides in the citizens."

I'd say “The United States is a republic, not a democracy”, is therefore not simply incomplete, but the "not a democracy" part is simply a lie.

Although it is getting closer to definition "c".

[CrazyGirl2]

1 of 2
I think we are talking at cross purposes. You asked "Do you understand the fact that a republic is a form of democracy?” I wrote NO because a republic CAN be a democracy, but it does not mean that it MUST be a democracy! The example I first gave was the Soviet Union, but it no longer exists, so I’ll submit a current country, The Islamic Republic of Iran as a currently existing republic which is not exactly known for its’ democratic principles!

However, yes, you’re correct! The USA is not a true Athenian democracy (AKA a direct democracy), it’s that way by design. The founders knew that a true democracy was just another form of “Mob Rule” They didn't want the new country they were building to descend into mob rule! (Meaning It’s a feature not a bug) it’s a representative republic by design, where the people (that’s we the public), elect representatives, and THEY vote in our place, or "in our stead”! However, those representatives are democratically elected.

[CrazyGirl2]

2 of 2
So republics can be democracies, but not necessarily, and a democracy can be a republic, but not necessarily. A simple way to put it is:

“Democracy describes who has the power. Republic describes how that power is exercised.”

Or even shorter:

“Democracy means the people rule. Republic means the people rule through representatives.”

Another version I like:

“A democracy answers who is sovereign? The people.
A republic answers how do they govern? Through elected representatives and laws.”

That’s why the terms can overlap.

* A country can be a republic without being democratic if elections are fake or meaningless.
* A country can be a democracy without being a republic if it has a monarch but the people elect the government, such as United Kingdom, Canada, or Sweden.

The United States combines both ideas:

“The people are sovereign (democracy), and they govern through elected representatives under a constitution (republic).”

That’s probably the clearest one-sentence explanation.

[goaded]

I was going by every definition of republic that I'd seen to date, but prompted by you I found another that describes the self-described republics of the USSR and DPRK, which means you're right.

Interestingly, the Merriam-Webster definition seems to get updated more often than I'd expect.

Still, the important conclusion is that a republic with genuine elections is absolutely a democracy, and the US is both. So far.

[CrazyGirl2]

Oh wow, thank you for acknowledging that. I really appreciate it thanks, my respect for you just sky rocked, seriously thanks!

But yes I would certainly agree that to a functional definition, the USA is absolutely governed by democracy and the democratic process, yes. It’s absolutely fair to call the US a democracy.

Thanks for the back and forth.
Laura. 🤗

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

You get trolled a lot, huh?

[goaded]

It's their only move. Truth, facts, evidence are always against them.

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

But you know their goal is to be purposely obtuse to make you mad because they think your anger is funny, right? They know they’re wrong, they just want you to get mad about it

[goaded]

Maybe, but I'll keep pointing out their ridiculousness because other, impressionable, people might be reading. "More speech".

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

You’re not responsible for any of that

[goaded]

Maybe not, but doing nothing isn't great.

[Cidknee]

No, he's the troller, harasser, and pest.

[goaded]

In this case, at least, he's not trolling, he really believes the US is not a democracy.

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

A democratic republic is not a pure democracy, this is true. You can honestly both be right about this at the same time, even in your own definitions that you posted.

[goaded]

There is no "pure democracy" and never has been, so when people say "democracy", they mean something that includes all democratic republics like the US.

You'll note they never say the US is not a "pure democracy", which would be true, but ridiculous, they just say "democracy", which is not true.

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

I believe the Roman Democracy was considered a “pure” democracy

[goaded]

Are you trolling me now? C:

"Even though the Roman Republic contributed significantly to many aspects of democracy, only a fraction of Romans were citizens with votes in elections for magistrates. The votes of the powerful were given more weight through a system of weighted voting, so most high officials, including members of the Senate, came from a few wealthy and noble families."

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

Jeez okay, you’re right

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

How does living and thinking like this not completely exhaust you?

[Just_Ken]

Democracy: In a theoretical "pure" or direct democracy, citizens vote directly on every piece of legislation. In a representative democracy, people vote for officials who then vote on laws.

Majority Rule: A standard democracy operates heavily on the principle that the counting of votes dictates what is legal.

Republic: At its most basic modern definition, a republic is a form of government where the head of state is not a monarch. Power is a "public matter" rather than the private property of a royal family.

Constitutional Framework: In places like the United States, a republic specifically implies a system where power is exercised according to the rule of law under a binding constitution.

The United States: The U. S. is a prime example of a constitutional federal representative democracy (or federal republic). It uses democratic processes (elections) to choose leaders, but a republican framework (the U. S. Constitution) limits what those leaders can legally do, preventing a "tyranny of the majority"

Non-Democratic Republics: A country can be a republic without being democratic. Historical oligarchies, or single-party authoritarian states with an unelected president, fit the technical definition of a republic simply because they lack a king.

Non-Republican Democracies: Conversely, a country can be highly democratic without being a republic. The United Kingdom and Japan are constitutional monarchies that utilize robust democratic systems, but they are not republics because their head of state is a monarch.

[goaded]

Very good, you repeated the question and update.

The important thing is: "The U. S. is a prime example of a constitutional federal representative democracy", emphasis on that final word for the idiots who claim it isn't one.

[Just_Ken]

At their core, a democracy is a system where the populace holds political power (either directly or through elected representatives), while a republic is a specific type of representative government governed by a constitution and the rule of law, protecting minority rights against majority rule.

Because almost all modern republics elect their officials, they function as representative democracies. The primary distinctions involve their focus and historical usage:

Democracy: Literally meaning "rule by the people" (from Greek), this term broadly describes where supreme power resides. In a "direct democracy," citizens vote directly on every law and policy, while in an "indirect" or "representative democracy," they elect officials to legislate for them.

Republic: Literally meaning "public affair" (from Latin), this refers to the structure of a government where there is no monarch. Power is held by elected representatives who are strictly limited by a supreme constitution. The primary purpose of a republic is to prevent the "tyranny of the majority," ensuring that even if most voters want something, they cannot strip away the fundamental rights of individuals or minority groups

[DryGermanGuy]

It's the equally stupid brother of the "Catholics and Christians are different religions" babble here, by the usual victims of the US-American education system.

[msc545]

It's also the stupid cousin of the Democrats or Republicans and Republicans are Democrats crap

[BadApple69]

Well you can say they are the same but we here in the U. S. are not mob rule as a democracy actually is.


The old joke is democracy is 2 wolves and 1 sheep deciding what’s for dinner.


In the U. S. a democratic republic every state votes on representatives who will vote for the in the house and senate for what’s best for their state. No mob rule.
If we had a pure democracy where everyone voted for everything the big cities would dominate the vote. Midwest states wouldn’t have any say at all.

[goaded]

Yes, that's exactly the same as every other democracy. Nobody has ever had "everyone voted for everything" outside a few villages.

[msc545]

That is the old refrain by people who think they have something intelligent to say when they really don't.

[goaded]

It's an excuse for treason.

[goaded]

They attempted to shoot Trump again. Thoughts? ↗

[msc545]

Apparently none of them were in the military or if they were their marksmanship is really lousy

[msc545]

Anyway, I don't think anybody tried to kill him. I think he just makes that crap up just seem like both a hero and a victim at the same time

[goaded]

Sorry, I can't find a way to link to one particular idiot. It's in the response to my opinion.

[goaded]

See if you can spot his opinion in here! C:

[msc545]

I don't see it.

[goaded]

You probably blocked him. Smart.

[Miristheiss]

Yes, but via the electoal college it isn't a pure democracy hence no mob rule.

The dense cities cannot rule the country and the moment 51% get power they cannot vote to take everything from the 49%.

[goaded]

I know why certain people are so sure that 51% would instantly try to make the other 49%'s lives worse. It's because that's what they're happy to do with 30%, and the Electoral College is a large part of what enables that. There's a reason that not a single democracy since has adopted such an unjust system.

Remember, men, who were 100% of voters, voted to let women vote. People over 21 voted to include anyone over 18.

Most people are decent and fair, which is why Trump's approval is in the 30's.

Biden's Inflation Reduction Act put more money into red states than blue because they needed it more.

[findacure4wokeness]

America is an electitive dictatorship. You vote on which dictatorship you want to lead the country who then goes off and does what ever he wants.

[goaded]

It's only a dictatorship if Congress abdicates its role in government, like now, and you still have regular elections to get rid of politicians who aren't doing what they're supposed to.

[findacure4wokeness]

@goaded you have to wait 4 years before you can get rid of them. vote for any one of them You want, It doesn't matter because they will always do whatever they want which is not always what they promised.
A dictator that is elected. .

[goaded]

Two. If they're really bad, they can be impeached. If that's not possible, then at least congress can go back to being an equal part of government and block the president's nonsense.

Why else are Republicans scrambling to cheat in the midterms, with gerrymanders, and even considering declaring components of voting machines national security threats so they could ban the machines, throwing elections into chaos?

They did not expect democratic states to fight back, and those states asked their citizens if it was OK to do so.

[Lynx122]

In theory a republic can work as a democracy but in practice there's a lot of pitfalls.

[goaded]

How do you mean? No democracy is flawless, but they're still democracies.

It's impractical to have everybody vote on everything, so you have representative democracies. The mechanisms for choosing the representatives are never flawless, but they can be peacefully changed by elections if really needed. In the UK, for example, they just removed all remaining hereditary peers from the House of Lords, after about a thousand years.

[Lynx122]

A lot of them turn into democracy in name only. Like the Epstein Files when you see how many years people had to put pressure on the government for anything to happen and now they passed a law that they need to be fully released and it still hasn't happened. That's just one example. The disconnect between what the people want and what politicians do is huge. In a democracy what people want should be a significant factor in decision making but often it's only done once all other options have become impossible. That's not a democracy for me that's a system of government where the politicians do everything they can to fuck the people but if they get pressured hard enough they might do something the people actually want. I just can't take a political system like this seriously and ones with no proportional representation (which leads to 2 major parties) even less. That's just how I feel, after seeing what's actually possible I can't unsee it.

[goaded]

It works better when people are paying attention, that's for sure. The Electoral College, disproportionality of the Senate in the US, and willingness of the Republicans to do all they can to thwart even bills they previously proposed (the ACA) while a minority do not help.

The laws to neuter Citizens United will help a lot (and that's something where polls "shortly after the ruling showed that 80% of those surveyed opposed (and 65% strongly opposed)").

Now we've seen how a corrupt leader and his equally corrupt people in congress and the supreme court can turn the government into a criminal organisation, the next president will have no choice but to codify the guardrails and limit the powers of the president (particularly to pardon co-conspirators), which congress should have done with Roe, and prosecute wrongdoers, which Biden should have started on day one of his presidency after Jan 6 - Jack Smith, not Mereck Garland. That, and re-organising SCOTUS so that it has an enforceable code of ethics and diluting the partisan membership (maybe formalising a requirement for 60 votes to confirm, not just the filibuster senate rule).

The point is, though, that elections still matter, which is why Trump is trying to find any excuse to ensure they don't happen or he can cheat them.

Reportedly, they even considered declaring components of voting machines national security threats so they could ban the machines, throwing elections into chaos. The mid-census gerrymandering would have had a devastating effect if democratic states hadn't fought back (which, honestly, was a surprise).

[Cidknee]

Well fortunately you don't have to live here in this REPUBLIC!

[goaded]

... which is a democracy.

[Cidknee]

Can you have a Republic without a form of democratic procedure?

[goaded]

Does your Republic have a form of democratic procedure?

[Cidknee]

😂 spin on.

[goaded]

No spin, just lies from you.

[Cidknee]

Where is a lie?

[beefcakebradybatson]

America is a pigmentocracy.

[noohair]

Anything that upsets you is fine.

[goaded]

That says it all. You have no substance, only trolling.