Were are a Democracy. However...

"That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind." Those are the famous words of Apollo 11 commander Neil Armstrong, powerfully describing a momentous scientific achievement for all humanity, less than a 100 years after the invention of the automobile by Karl Benz in the late nineteenth century.

It is a widely accepted canon in rhetoric to be specific in your communication. Qualify your speech. Be specific. Let's go back to Neil Armstrong's words, but instead let's be more general and less specific. "Man" and "mankind" can be substituted for "human" and "humanity" respectfully. What if those words were replaced with "mammal" and "mammals" respectfully? Let's rephrase Armstrong's words: "That's one small step for a mammal, one giant leap for mammals." Clearly, that quote is not as powerful and would only be memorable as a source of mockery, but we do the same by referring to the American system as a democracy, instead of as a republic.

Yes, the American system is a democracy. But there are multiple forms that a democracy can take. For example, a democracy can be either a pure democracy or a republic. Let's define those terms.

pure democracy
: democracy in which the power is exercised directly by the people rather than through representatives

republic
: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law​

Except for some localalities in New England, generally speaking, the United States is a republic. For example, when Democrats in New York elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, they are electing her to represent them. The citizens of New York's 14th Congressional District are not directly voting on approving what legislation gets passed. They are not at congressional hearings.They leave all of that in the hands Alexandria.

For some reason, using the word "republic" is a hard thing for some people, it would appear. Here are some randomized examples from articles in the New York Times and the Atlantic.

"We Had to Force the Constitution to Accommodate Democracy, and It Shows."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/07/opinion/constitution-democracy-biden-trump.html

Amount of times "democracy" is writen: 11
Amount of times "republic" is written: 2
​

"‘A Crisis Coming’: The Twin Threats to American Democracy"
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/17/us/american-democracy-threats.html

Amount of times "democracy" is written: 42
Amount of times "republic" is written: 2
​

"Democracy in America"
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1893/12/democracy-in-america/523974/

Amount of times "democracy" is writen: 53
Amount of times "republic" is written: 0
​

"‘America Is a Republic, Not a Democracy’ Is a Dangerous—And Wrong—Argument"
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/yes-constitution-democracy/616949/

Amount of times "democracy" is written: 35
Amount of times "republic" is written: 20​

This is clearly bad writing at best, which is odd, given that these outlets are supposed to be reputable in their writerly composition. For some reason, it would appear that they have been given a pass by being repeatedly vague in their language in this particular instance. I'll stand corrected, but I've not seen the same thing done in other contexts. If "humanity" and "mankind" are not substituted for "mammals," for example, then why is "republic" substituted for "democracy" so frequently? Yes, we can be more specific in our description of our system by referring to it as a "representative democracy," which would be the definition of a republic. However, another well-respected canon of good writing is to be concise. "Republic" is one word, whereas "representative democracy" is two words, not to mention having 8 syllables to the 2 syllables of "republic." To quote Shakespeare, "Brevity is the soul of wit." And I think that man knows a thing or two about good writing.

 

Minor correction: I meant to write 9 syllables for "representative democracy" and 3 syllables for "republic."

 

I do truly wonder why people keep referring to our system as a democracy, even though we specifically are a republic, a subset of democracy.

 

The US is a constitutional republic.

 

I liked your OP, but this is not quite correct. There are Republics that are not democracies: China, Venezuela, North Korea..... Republic basically means that it's not a Monarchy.

The terms "Republic" and "Democracy" refer to completely different things. A Republic is a type of government in which the head of state changes from time to time. i.e., it's not a lifetime appointment nor is it inherited by family. And a Democracy refers to HOW a new head of state is selected... Specifically it's a Democracy when they are elected by the people. For that reason we are a Democratic Republic.

 

That is one sense of a republic, which is correct, and I am referring to the other sense of a republic, which is a subset of democracy. Here are the two senses of the word "republic" that are being used in this dialogue:

republic

: a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president
: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law​

So, while you are correct in one sense of what a republic is (the first sense listed), you are incorrect that it is not a subset of democracy, in which "supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law."

The countries you listed hardly fall within the second sense of the word; but they are technically republics, because they are not monarchies, thus falling within the first sense of the word. Those countries are republics in the sense that they do not have a king. The United States, as defined by our national charter, thus making it a constitutional republic, as @popscott pointed out, is a republic in both senses of the word: we have a president, not a king (the first sense), and we elect people who represent us--that is, a country "of the people, by the people, and for the people," the second sense.

 

Your human bigotry stands out the most to me in your post. The first mammal in space was a dog you know. ****ing self obsessed humans.

 

Excuse me, sir. It's my mammalian bigotry. Get it straight.

 

No, you said saying it's a great thing for mammals was laughable, didn't you? Yet you take it seriously when it's humans?

 

That's a dictionary definition. Not a political science definition (which would be too long to include in a dictionary). Dictionary definitions can be misleading because, since they have to be short, they are incomplete. Not "wrong" just incomplete. For example, in North Korea the Supreme Leader is elected by a body of citizens entitled to vote for elected officials who select the President. For that reason, it's a Republic. Same happens in China. But they are not democracies.

The mistake you are making is to say that "Republic" is a subset of democracy. It is not. They are two completely different things.

"Constitutional" simply means that there is a Constitution.

All the dictatorships I mentioned have a Constitution. Therefore, they are Constitutional Republics. But not democracies. And there are democracies that don't have a Constitution (like the U.K.)

We are a Constitutional Democratic Republic. But these are three completely different things. The best brief way to define them is

Constitutional: The form of government is defined in a Constitution.
Democracy: Not a dictatorship
Republic: Not a Monarchy.

There are sub-categories in each. But none of the three is a sub-category of the others.

 

You state:

Then you state:

These statements appear to contradict each other. In the first statement, you agree that the definition provided is not incorrect, just incomplete. In the second statement, you say that a republic and a democracy "are two completely different things." That does not make sense; those statements have an oil-and-water logic: they can't mix, resulting in a non sequitur.

You agree that the definition is not wrong, just incomplete; but then you appear to be arguing that the incompleteness of the dictionary definition is the reason why its definition is not actually its definition, which does not make sense. No, a dictionary cannot go into, for example, the histories and philosophies of republicanism; but that limitation doesn't nullify its definition, and the definition of republic, in a sense, is a subset of democracy.

Merriam-Webster does actually expand upon the definition in a short article:

One of the most commonly encountered questions about the word democracy has nothing to do with its spelling or pronunciation, and isn’t even directly related to the meaning of the word itself. That question is “is the United States a democracy or a republic?” The answer to this, as with so many other questions about meaning, may be phrased as some form of “it depends.”

Some people assert that a country calling itself a democracy must be engaged in direct (or pure) democracy, in which the people of a state or region vote directly for policies, rather than elect representatives who make choices on their behalf. People who follow this line of reasoning hold that the United States is more properly described as a republic, using the following definition of that word: "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law."

However, both democracy and republic have more than a single meaning, and one of the definitions we provide for democracy closely resembles the definition of republic given above: "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections."

So if someone asks you if the United States is a democracy or a republic, you may safely answer the question with either “both” or “it depends.”​

You also appear to be doing what the liberal media does: when you bring up republics, you bring up the worst states, including China and North Korea. It is an implicit way to demonize republics, republicanism, and, by extension, the Republican Party. Yes, North Korea and China refer to themselves as republics, but they are not. Just because they call themselves republics, it does not mean they are. North Korea's official name is the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea," and it defines itself in its constitution as a "a dictatorship of people's democracy." China refers to itself as the "people's democratic dictatorship." But they are not democracies, and they are not republics. And I'd appreciate that if you are going to engage in this argument to please do so honestly and constructively.

 

We do elect our representative leaders by democracy. Except when a cabal attempts to keep a certain name off the ballot. The cabal is afraid the people may elect said individual.

 

Indeed, and that cabal are the ones who most use the word democracy. It's a sick, twisted irony.

 

Ok. So let me make my point clear. Everything you say is accurate EXCEPT when you say that "republic" is a subset of "democracy". They describe different things. "Republic" refers to how power transitions from one head of state to another. If it's inherited, it's a monarchy, otherwise it's a Republic. And "Democracy" refers to a form of government in which the decisions are made by the people and their elected representatives.

This is why we have Republics that are not Democracies (China, N.Korea, Venezuela, ...) and Democracies that are not Republics (UK, Netherlands, Australia, ...)

They are just two different things.

The non-sequitur is yours. I didn't say anything about "can't mix". They just refer to different things that are NOT simply a subset of the other.

Dictionary definitions of specialized topics like Political Science are ALWAYS incomplete. They are not INTENDED to be complete. Just to give somebody who is completely unfamiliar with the word a general idea of what the word means in the minds of an average person.

That's a bit paranoid. I'm only bringing up the fact that they ARE Republics, but not democracies. Therefore, a Republic CANNOT be a subset of Democracy, like you claimed. Most Republics ARE Democracies. The U.S., France, Mexico, Costa Rica, Germany, ... And I could fill pages and pages with "the best" Republics just so you don't think I'm only mentioning "the worst". But that's besides the point.

 

Nice OP, @Xyce.

I think Britannica's definition is suitable: "republic, form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives of the citizen body."

I agree. While it is democratic, in that the citizens vote for their representatives, it is not a pure democracy.

It's also worth noting that some countries may call themselves republics but are nothing of the sort.

 

Yes, China can call itself anything it wants.

I would suggest that representative democracy is one decision making methodology that can be used or not used by a government of any kind of structure. For example, the UK is a constitutional monarchy that uses representative democracy.

The problem we see in the US is that parties see their dominance as being more important than democracy. Thus schemes are created by those in power for the expressed purpose of denying representation of those that aren't in power. We have our Supreme Court, which has to curb the racism present in various states which work to deny representation on racial lines. We have DC, which has more people than two actual states, but has NO congressional representation. We have the Electoral College, which gives significantly more representation to states with low and rural population even though the vast majority is not rural and thus has very different issues. We also have Puerto Rico where the citizens are fully American citizens and pay US taxes, but have ZERO representation - which is a key reason we had a revolution.

So, we call ourselves a "representative democracy" while there are major partisan efforts to make our democracy NOT representative - and they are succeeding in that.

Do YOU believe we should be a "representative democracy"??

 

Let's focus on your claim that North Korea is a republic, according to your definition of what makes up a republic. Your claim is that a republic "refers to how power transitions from one head of state to another. If it's inherited, it's a monarchy, otherwise it's a Republic." Later on, you write that North Korea is an example of a republic. But North Korea has been ruled by one family since its founding by Kim Il Sung. In February 1974, Kim Jong Il became the heir apparent. (1) When Kim Jong Il died, his son was "elected" in an "election" in which he was the only one on the ballot. Clearly, the leadership in North Korea is one based on de facto inheritance, which, according to your definition, would preclude it from being a republic.

That is the concept of a representative democracy--or more concisely stated, a republic. Furthermore, your definition of a democracy being "a form of government in which the decisions are made by the people and their elected representatives" would logically preclude pure democracies, since that is "democracy in which the power is exercised directly by the people rather than through representatives."

1. Lim, Jae-Cheon. "The Kims: Image-making." Leader Symbols and Personality Cult in North Korea: The Leader State. 2015. 90​

 

What's important is to keep in mind that OUR Government IS BY THE PEOPLE. Whether it's a "Democracy" or a "Republic" or a "Democratic Republic", OUR Government gets it's authority and legitimacy to govern FROM ... "WE THE PEOPLE". Which has ALWAYS been unique to "THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA" and still is.

In that light the argument of whether it's a "Democracy" or a "Republic" or a "Democratic Republic" is just a pissing contest, that really is insignificant.

 

Please read the OP, instead of just saying random things that stem from your apparent preconceptions. I am not engaging in "our form of government is a republic, not a democracy" or vice versa. My point is that we are a republic, which is a specific form of democracy, but it appears that most if not all of Democrats refer to our form of government as a democracy, not a republic, which is vague and a bad form of communication. I provided multiple random articles from apparently prestigious Democrat outlets in which this is done time and again, being a leitmotif, even though it flies in the face of good writing, which is to be specific in your writing. It is analogous to referring to humanity as mammals. Refer to my example of Neil Armstrong's quote: "That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind." It would be laughable if we replaced man and mankind with mammal and mammals, respectively. Similarly, it's laughable to refer to our form of government as a democracy, when we are a republic, a specific form of democracy. Why is it not okay to replace mammal and mammals for man and mankind in the Armstrong quote, but it is okay to replace republic with democracy? Why it that not a form of bad communication, bad writing?

 

First of all, notice “I” did not quote your OP. Specifically because I think it’s getting technical about our form of democracy is a silly debate.There’s no need to go off on me, call it what you like; I don’t care.

What IS significant and unique about our government IS that it derives its legitimacy and power from THE PEOPLE. And that has made all the difference for Americans and, in fact, the world.

I was listening to a Ken Burns interview about this. It was just after he made his series about the holocaust. He commented that someone asked him; “don’t you think the holocaust is the most important thing since the birth of Christ?” Burns answered; “NOooo! The most important thing to happen since the birth of Christ was the Birth of The United States.” Government By The People is the greatest invention by man for mankind … EVER.

George Washington rode to his inauguration in a horse drawn cart, just like Julius Caesar. All the greatest accomplishments of mankind have occurred since Government By The People and OUR CONSTITUTION came to be.

I don’t care if you call it a republic or if someone else calls it a democracy. Or if yet another person wants to call it a democratic republic. I care that ALL Americans love and cherish it for the unique blessing that Government By The People IS; for ALL mankind THAT’s what’s important.

 

Do you believe hyper partisan gerrymandering is democracy?

 

From the point of view of communication, does it not make more sense to refer to our government as a republic, not a democracy, since democracy is more general, and republic is more specific?

 

You mean republican, you mammal?

 

I mean what I said. Wtf are you talking about?

 

No, not if it’s one more thing that we become divided about.

Reread my post, I edited it.