Emphasis on republic or democracy? .

well it doesnt sound like hes asking for it since the US isnt supposed to have it.

but then again u dont think ben franklin knew what he was talking about when he said we have a republic in america. u just continue to deny the obvious truth.

 

Shadow
The modern definition of democracy is of the wide spread enfranchisement of the citizenry. But the US republic began with very limited voting rights (only white male property owners) and it was still a republic. Voting rights were fought for often in the face of fierce opposition from established powers and it could be argued that the US didn’t really become a modern democracy until 1965 with the Voting Rights Act.

Now I admit that when Ben said the US was a republic he was right; it was a republic where only white male property owners had the vote which was about only 10 to 16 percent of the population. To me that wasn’t really a democracy.

But now it is a democracy but you seem to claim that it doesn’t matter if everyone votes or just 10 per cent vote it would still be a Republic and you want it to be a republic, so are you saying you don’t really care if it’s a democratic republic?

 

balbus it isnt a democracy. the statement that it was a republic back then and isnt now doesnt make sense. the type of government isnt determined by what percentage of people can and cant vote. it is still supposed to be a republic though it has become an unlawful democracy.

 

Yea, and I already pointed out that in the US there are so many disenfranchised citizens who can not "legally" vote for one reason or another... But Blabus is ignoring that fact.

 

balbus ignores the truth but instead listens to only the ramblings that he posts. he doesnt actually put any arguments up but rather just denies anything anyone else says.

 

Totally agreed.
Guess now this post will not be so interesting for Balbus because we are not arguing, so he'll have to "close" it...iggy:

 

Also the constitution does make a reference to democracy as a practice, just not a word, for example:

 

yes and no. there is voting involved in both a republic and a democracy. one of the differences is the way that minorities get more of a say in a republic than a democracy. for example if america did not have an electoral college during the presidential election minorities would have virtually no say. states also make their own voting areas which are designed to give minorites some power. politicians have, in the past, managed to abuse that power like all others and gerrymandering came about. gerrymandering is now illegal. in a democracy, there shouldnt be zones like that. america has talked about removing the electoral college for some time now. just another way of trying to ignore the fact that we are a republic.

 

Earthmother

Ignore it EXCEPT in post 1 and post 13, what was it, did you think a barefaced lie would work or did you just not read the posts – neither does your credibility any good.

My point has been that the disenfranchisement of citizens is a bad thing for a democracy to be doing but it’s perfectly all right in a republic.

You could disenfranchise all black people and the US would remain a republic, you could disenfranchise all the women and the US would remain a republic, you could just allow the top ten per cent of the richest people to vote (as was the case in Benjamin Franklins time) and the US would remain a republic.

It just wouldn’t be a modern democracy.


As I’ve said if someone’s intention was to limit the democratic element in the US system a first step might be to emphasise the republican element and hark back to the founding fathers (when only propertied white men could vote).

Post 1

Post 13

 

The electoral college has nothing to do with protecting minorities unless it refers to small states or being a federal republic.There is no basis for any kind of national election in the United States and the presidential one is still an example, the individual states choose electors to choose the federal president, hence the states retain their independence.

 

Balbus, which came first, the chicken or the egg? We say this is NOT a Democracy, because it's not. We do not say it is a REPUBLIC because we WANT it to be. It simply IS. You SEEM TO BE SAYING that because we SAY it is a REPUBLIC, we WANT it to be one...

 

No, it is not.

 

Doublespeak!

 

i think i explained how it works in states in the last post but its ok ill post it anyways. in states, you have electoral districts that are basically lines drawn on a map. each district would have its representation. if the minorities live in the same district they then better their chances at getting representation versus if the entire state voted for people. honestly that probably was a little confusing. the best way is just to look up gerrymandering and electoral districts. that might give u a better idea of what im talking about.

 

did democracy work for the Greeks ?
did a republic work for the Romans ?

is either of them working for the US right now ?

i think that is the real question we should be focusing on.

 

That was three questions!

 

The USA is a republic, in my opinion. To me, the question is moreso "does it matter?" Is there any form of government that has ever REALLY worked and not become something it wasn't intended to be?

 

Then, perhaps we are missing the root of the problem?

 

Well, yea. The root of the problem is that everything is just too BIG. And the bigger it is, the more "controls" need to be placed upon it. And the bigger something is, the more problems there are, so the more people you need... Just like a machine with too many moving parts that could break. So you end up with a monster EVERY TIME. I'm not sure what the alternative would be except giving the states more independence and more authority to decide how to do things and taking away a lot of power from the federal government. I think the FEDERAL government's job should be to keep an eye on the states to make sure that they have their NECESSARY individual programs and whatnot in place, but to allow the states to take charge of themselves. The fed-gov would only be mostly an "overseer", while the states would be responsible for the actual taking care of themselves part.