Revisited: America is a representative democracy, a federal democratic constitutional republic.

you have no concept what democracy really is. Or how our system of government is designed to work

le
Delusional and Democrat start with the same letter - I'm betting that's no coincidence.

 

https://onlysky.media/mjohnson/were-a-republic-not-a-democracy-the-origin-of-a-weird-talking-point/

The argument that the United States is not a democracy originated in the heads of conservative thinkers with an incentive to preserve the power of the two fast-shrinking majorities that form the core of the Republican base

 

Uh, no. The founding fathers advanced that theory long ago and designed a government to ensure democracy, aka majority rule, would NOT govern this country. You can post as many whacks doddle theorist nonsense as you want, you can't argument with the founders.

 

No, here's the truth;

https://onlysky.media/mjohnson/were-a-republic-not-a-democracy-the-origin-of-a-weird-talking-point/

The argument that the United States is not a democracy originated in the heads of conservative thinkers with an incentive to preserve the power of the two fast-shrinking majorities that form the core of the Republican base

 

Why would this load of crap prove anything to us? Just another LW looney wet-dream about how wonderful things would be if lefties held all the power to run the country - the exact opposite to the principles the founding fathers envisaged. You can post as many of these crap links as you want; they're not "proof" of anything but the spread of totalitarian socialism disease.

 

There's nothing Democratic about our country our law is the Constitution that isn't voted on.

It's a constitutional republic with a representative government.

I'm not sure why so many people are so desperate to say we're a democracy we aren't. And we should never ever want to be.

 

Miller agrees with you, but I'm not talking about the practical reality of dark politics, I'm talking principles.

In every election, the majority wins.

America has many elections.

A nation that elects leaders, indirectly or directly, is a democracy. Not a direct democracy, but a democracy.

Saying a Republic is not a Democracy is a specious argument, it only works if you cherry pick every nuance each possess, and leave only the two that do not agree.

One kind of republic is not a democracy.

One kind of democracy is not a republic.

But, if we use the broadest sense of both terms, then the terms are not mutually exclusive.

In the broadest sense of the term, Republic, it is a government of either appointed, or elected leaders (as opposed to a Monarchy), either directly or indirectly.

Generally speaking, in all of the western democracies, called 'Republics", laws are voted in by elected representatives.

In the Broadest sense of Democracy, is a government of elected leaders, either directly or indirectly.

All modern democracies have laws voted on by elected representatives.

Now, you can intersect both words where they join. Do you see it?

https://onlysky.media/mjohnson/were-a-republic-not-a-democracy-the-origin-of-a-weird-talking-point/

The argument that the United States is not a democracy originated in the heads of conservative thinkers with an incentive to preserve the power of the two fast-shrinking majorities that form the core of the Republican base

 

You Can post every damn socio-tyrannical loony on the internet - it doesn't change things - top-down, authoritarian government never succeeds long term.
And once again for possible comprehension - the FF avoid a simplistic "majority wins" mind set because they understood that it would degrade into a totalitarian shitstorm. They understood that competing interests operating under a just set of laws offered the best chance of a long surviving society and government and society.

 

Principles? Sorry, no. No principles here. Mental masturbation is more like it. Jabberwocky.

 

https://onlysky.media/mjohnson/were-a-republic-not-a-democracy-the-origin-of-a-weird-talking-point/

The argument that the United States is not a democracy originated in the heads of conservative thinkers with an incentive to preserve the power of the two fast-shrinking majorities that form the core of the Republican base

Majority rule, once the comfortable mainstay of a white and Christian majority, has in recent years become a looming threat as both white and Christian (not to mention white Christian) shrink inexorably toward minority status.

Both Lee and Dobski are arguing against majoritarianism and for a form of minority rule. Such a shift requires a long-game devaluation of fairness, day by day, talking point by talking point. It seems ludicrous until we recall that Republicans have only won the popular vote for President once in nearly three decades. Republicans are a political minority. To wield power at the federal level, they have increasingly relied on anti-majoritarian strategies.

None of the Republicans I can remember in the past ever raised this claim, it wasn't until you guys started losing elections, and now you want to argue for tyranny of the minority ,

We'll see what the majority says about that. In American elections, Majority wins, sorry bub.

And that is democracy.

Why in hell would Churchill say.....'


'Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’

 

That's some odd 'truth', drawing its conclusions as it does from: "Columbia University research scholar Nicole Hemmer" who claims "the “republic, not a democracy” argument originated with conservatives in the 1930s who wanted to prevent the country from joining the Second World War. Roosevelt’s call for America to defend democracy drew a conservative response that “we’re not a democracy, we are a republic.”

Given that US involvement in the war was still unpopular in the 1930s, and Roosevelt was (publicly) calling for continued neutrality. I mean, we know now that Roosevelt was working feverishly behind the scenes to get us into the war for years before Pearl Harbor, and with hindsight I think many will agree that was a good call... it doesn't really jive with what your source (or, your source's source) is claiming. Why would conservatives have been arguing against democracy being an excuse to get us into a war that joining was already unpopular at the time, and neither the President nor any majority of our representatives were calling for us to join anyway? Maybe she answers that question in her book, but I don't have it and your source didn't provide any explanation, so it appears at this point that your source's source is just plain old wrong.

But even if there is an explanation for the apparent historical inaccuracy, it still doesn't mean that the people using the argument today are using it for the same reasons your source claims it was used long ago. I'm no more or less qualified to project peoples own intentions onto them for them than your source is, but I can tell you when I remind people that we are a democracy limited by a constitution, its most commonly because they have tried to argue in favor of something that would violate that constitution by justifying 'well we are a democracy.' And judging from how I see people use that argument today, I'm not alone.

Interestingly, one other mention of Hemmer that your source links to mentions her discussion of "conservatives throughout the 20th century inveighed against pure democracy whenever they found themselves in the political minority". What's the issue we that? We DON'T live in a pure democracy, right? We can agree that would be awful, right? I dunno if she does (it kinda sounds like it...), but if this Nicole Hemmer were advocating that we get rid of the constitution and rule via pure democracy, would you still consider her opinion on this subject to be valuable?

 

They were talking about direct democracy, NOT 'minority rule', that's absolutely false. Indirect democracy is still majority rule. he who has the most electors, when they reach 270 or higher, wins. If no 270, vote goes to the house, where the majority wins.

There is NO argument made in the federalist papers, or in the constitutional ratification convention, that they were arguing for minority rule.

They feared direct democracy, yes, but that doesn't mean they wanted minority rule. No way.

They tempered majority rule, that's all they did. How did they do it?

with an EC
With a bicameral legislature.
With 2 senators per state.
With disproportionate districting in the states.

But always, always, always, always, always, in EVERY election America, of which there are many.

Majority wins.

"But a representative democracy, where the right of election is well secured and regulated & the exercise of the legislative, executive and judiciary authorities, is vested in select persons, chosen really and nominally by the people, will, in my opinion be most likely to be happy, regular and durable."

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-01-02-0162

And, again, in Federalist 22 Hamilton writes:

"....that fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail."

Hamilton was highlighting the necessity for a government system where the majority's opinion is central to its function and decision-making process,

And, then by Merriam-Webster:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/democracy-and-republic

...democracy and republic are frequently used to mean the same thing: a government in which the people vote for their leaders.

This is right off the Government's website

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/lesson-plans/Government_and_You_handouts.pdf

Democracy in the United States.

The United States is a representative democracy. This means that our government is elected by citizens. Here, citizens vote for their government officials. These officials represent the citizens’ ideas and concerns in government. Voting is one way to participate in our democracy. Citizens can also contact their officials when they want to support or change a law. Voting in an election and contacting our elected officials are two ways that Americans can participate in their democracy.

https://onlysky.media/mjohnson/were-a-republic-not-a-democracy-the-origin-of-a-weird-talking-point/

The argument that the United States is not a democracy originated in the heads of conservative thinkers with an incentive to preserve the power of the two fast-shrinking majorities that form the core of the Republican base

Majority rule, once the comfortable mainstay of a white and Christian majority, has in recent years become a looming threat as both white and Christian (not to mention white Christian) shrink inexorably toward minority status.

Both Lee and Dobski are arguing against majoritarianism and for a form of minority rule. Such a shift requires a long-game devaluation of fairness, day by day, talking point by talking point. It seems ludicrous until we recall that Republicans have only won the popular vote for President once in nearly three decades. Republicans are a political minority. To wield power at the federal level, they have increasingly relied on anti-majoritarian strategies.


So you are talking nonsense.

 

All of the western democracies are representative democracies. When the term is used in modernity, we are referring to modern democracy, where law is created by vote by representatives.

Leejah Miller pointed this out, and Republicans are arguing a strawman, NO ONE is suggesting a 'direct democracy'.

In every election, the majority wins.

America has many elections.

A nation that elects leaders, indirectly or directly, is a democracy. Not a direct democracy, but a democracy.

Saying a Republic is not a Democracy is a specious argument, it only works if you cherry pick every nuance each possess, and leave only the two that do not agree.

One kind of republic is not a democracy.

One kind of democracy is not a republic.

But, if we use the broadest sense of both terms, then the terms are not mutually exclusive.

In the broadest sense of the term, Republic, it is a government of either appointed, or elected leaders (as opposed to a Monarchy), either directly or indirectly.

Generally speaking, in all of the western democracies, called 'Republics", laws are voted in by elected representatives.

In the Broadest sense of Democracy, is a government of elected leaders, either directly or indirectly.

All modern democracies have laws voted on by elected representatives.

Now, you can intersect both words where they join. Do you see it?

So, using the terms in the broadest sense. "Republic" and "Democracy" are not mutually exclusive terms.

They only become mutually exclusive when you strip away all of the nuance of each that agree and leave only the two left that do not agree. If you look up the definitions of each, dictionaries will list several definitions of each, across a wide variety of dictionaries. Embrace them all then the terms are not mutually exclusive, for they have nuance each that overlap into the other.

And that is what Republicans are doing, (stripping out all nuance that agrees) and one must ask why?

This guy nails it, the reason why:

https://onlysky.media/mjohnson/were-a-republic-not-a-democracy-the-origin-of-a-weird-talking-point/

The argument that the United States is not a democracy originated in the heads of conservative thinkers with an incentive to preserve the power of the two fast-shrinking majorities that form the core of the Republican base

Majority rule, once the comfortable mainstay of a white and Christian majority, has in recent years become a looming threat as both white and Christian (not to mention white Christian) shrink inexorably toward minority status.

Both Lee and Dobski are arguing against majoritarianism and for a form of minority rule. Such a shift requires a long-game devaluation of fairness, day by day, talking point by talking point. It seems ludicrous until we recall that Republicans have only won the popular vote for President once in nearly three decades. Republicans are a political minority. To wield power at the federal level, they have increasingly relied on anti-majoritarian strategies.

If Repubs can't win elections, their strategy is to destroy it.

Because, minority rule is NOT 'democracy', No definition of democracy gives that as a definition, NOR IS IT THE THE DEFINITION OF A REPUBLIC.

 

You're still ignoring the context. For example, the most common usage of the 'republic, not a democracy' argument that I see is in the context of gun control. Its likely that this is because I tend to engage more in that subject. But in that context, the prompting argument is typically along the lines of 'majority of Americans support more restrictions on guns.' To my mind, that equates to 'majority of Americans support more infringements on the right to bear arms.' Which doesn't matter because infringing the right to bear arms is unconstitutional. We could change the constitution with a supermajority, but that is almost never part of the proposal. Thus, the argument is essentially (logically): 'the constitution doesn't matter because we have a majority.' Which isn't meaningfully different from calling for rule via pure democracy, since if the constitution doesn't matter, then pure democracy is what we effectively have.

Sure no one actually comes out and literally says 'I want a pure democracy.' BUT that is essentially what they are calling for whenever they are trying to push for something that the constitution doesn't allow. And THAT does happen a lot.

 

How do we select representatives?

 

No its not.

 

Effectively, the duopoly pretends to give voters a choice and the voters accept the choice made for them. We can loosely interpret that as some form of "democracy", perhaps.

 

Then what is it?

 

Pure democracy is 3 pigs and 1 sheep voting on what to have for dinner. If it's a great system, point me to just one country that uses it. The US system of shared power is at the root of our success. Not just shared by branch, but also shared in that the ruling party doesn't have total control. Even when outvoted, the minority party has a say, that has to be respected.

The electoral college isn't unfair. It's just another branch of the shared power. It doesn't exist in a vacuum; it's part of it all.

The founders didn't set up the current system; this is just where it ended up. They wanted more representatives as population went up, but instead we put a cap in at some point, making congress far too powerful, because they are so few.

 

So you don't know the answer to the question despite your self declared Constitutional expertise. I figured as much.

And because you don't know the answer, all you can do is demonize anybody who disagrees with you.

Which pretty much establishes the hyperbolic tendency toward totalitarianism in everything you post.

Which will make your side's ultimate defeat that much sweeter.

Most successful people get there by not underestimating the opposition. But the left has nothing else.

 

A democratic system.

 

You failed to refute my data points.

 

In America, we vote. Majority wins.

We are a republic that is a representative democracy based on a federalism.

No one is arguing pure democracy. In a pure democracy laws are voted on.

We vote for representatives who vote on legislation our behalf.

The term, 'democracy', given that fact that every western democracy is a representative democracy, we are talking about representative democracy. To assert that when democracy is mentioned, we are talking about pure democracies, is false. We are talking about democracy in modernity, none of which are pure democracies.

So, when I say, 'America is a democracy' I, nor anyone else, is harping on the 'pure democracy' STRAWMAN.

Democracy is a broad term, it doesn't mean just voting, it is a high minded decriptive, term, describing a nation of laws, where people have rights, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, can work in the fields of their choise, are free withint the constraints allowed by the constitution and court rulings, where there is a governing body of representatives voting for legislation on our behalf, a legislature voted on by the electorate, a government whose authority is granted by the consent of the people, etc.

Democracy ios all these things, this is the point that gets lost on Republicans.

So, why are they arguing against Democracy?

Well, they really started making a lot of noise when they started losing elections.

https://onlysky.media/mjohnson/were-a-republic-not-a-democracy-the-origin-of-a-weird-talking-point/
The argument that the United States is not a democracy originated in the heads of conservative thinkers with an incentive to preserve the power of the two fast-shrinking majorities that form the core of the Republican base

Majority rule, once the comfortable mainstay of a white and Christian majority, has in recent years become a looming threat as both white and Christian (not to mention white Christian) shrink inexorably toward minority status.

Both Lee and Dobski are arguing against majoritarianism and for a form of minority rule. Such a shift requires a long-game devaluation of fairness, day by day, talking point by talking point. It seems ludicrous until we recall that Republicans have only won the popular vote for President once in nearly three decades. Republicans are a political minority. To wield power at the federal level, they have increasingly relied on anti-majoritarian strategies.

 

No one is arguing for a pure democracy.

Read the OP, and listen to the video.

 

1. There was no question in your comment to which I rebutted
2. There was no demonization
3. There was no hyperbole, facts were presented and substantiated
4. You are talking nonsense.