Were are a Democracy. However...

Hint: Read the OP.

 

But why do we have to be divided about referring to our system as a republic? Why can't we all just unite under that banner? Not only is it more specific than saying "democracy," it's also more concise than saying "democracy," as republic has fewer letters and syllables. Simply referring to our system as a republic conforms with all canons of good communication; referring to our system as a democracy does not.

 

And let us not forget that the founding fathers hated and feared (because they actually knew history) democracy. Hence, the senate and the presidential electors.

 

Indeed, Madison, for example, specifically dreaded pure democracy:

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.​

That is why he specifically championed republicanism:

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.​

 

Yes. But the power is not inherited. In a monarchy the Sovereign decides who is to succeed them from their "bloodline" and... they become the Monarch for life! In North Korea the president of the "State of Affairs Commission" becomes the head of state. And this is selected through a complex process that involves being Head of the "Workers Party" who is elected by vote of the representatives the members elected (not relevant to describe the process in detail). Constitutionally, they can choose ANYBODY. And anybody in power can also be removed using the same process. In practice, any opposition faces dire consequences. Including assassination.

The term "Republic" doesn't refer to WHO is the leader. It refers to HOW they constitutionally came to power.

Which means it's a de facto dictatorship run by a single family. What you are trying to argue is that N Korea is a monarchy. But N Korea doesn't meet ANY definition of "Monarchy". It does meet the definition of Republic in Political Science. A definition that existed long before N. Korea exists. N. Korea has a constitution and the process of electing the head of state is spelled out. And there is NOTHING that says that it has to be a member of the Kim family. For this reason, N.Korea IS a Republic. And it is a de facto constitutional dictatorship.

 

I posted Britannica's definition yesterday. Wikipedia also has a decent definition: "A republic, based on the Latin phrase res publica ('public affair'), is a state in which political power rests with the public and their representatives—in contrast to a monarchy."

And getting back to your OP, I'm not sure why most people call the U.S. a democracy much more often than they call it a republic. It certainly does have democratic processes, so maybe people are focused on that.

It also doesn't matter whether or not North Korea is a republic or not, since your OP is about the U.S, and whether it is a pure democracy vs. a republic.

 

Democratic principles suggest that "the people" somehow control their government by way of an electoral process.

Such principles may have been in play in the early days of our Republic, but they vanished at least in the 20th century, as alluded to by Ike in his Farewell Address. Today we are full on fascist oligarchy.

 

The guy you are arguing with discusses this topic nonstop. It is silly and a colossal waste of time.

We are a Democratically elected Constitutional Republic. There is not much else to say on the subject.

 

I don't see why that is a problem. Nobody calling America a democracy is referring to pure democracy and nobody hearing they will take that interpretation. The other element is that democracy can refer to a general concept of the people having influence over government as well as the specific label for a type of government or nation. From a purely grammatical point of view, democracy has more uses than republic.

Well the first three articles appear to be specifically about democracy as a general concept so it shouldn't be surprising they use that word a lot. The article talking about the actual topic you're raising has both words at similar rates.

In general, the valid uses of the two words are significantly different and varied so the fact they're used in different volumes in different contexts shouldn't be surprising or controversial. Word counts don't really have any relevance to meaning. Do you have any specific examples where the word democracy is used but it would be more accurate to use republic instead?

I could also reverse your underlying question; Why are so many Americans reluctant to call their nation a democracy?

 

Our republic has a democratic process because it is a democracy; it's just not a purely democratic process, wherein the people directly, for example, pass legislation. Generally speaking, we do so through representation of representatives. That's why we have Congress. If we were a pure democracy, there would be no Congress. The people would just vote on whatever policy they wanted to enact. Clearly, we don't go do that. Therefore, we are not pure democracy; we are a republic.

True. But I wanted to illustrate that North Korea wasn't a republic, even by the made-up definition of the poster to whom I was responding.

 

But why be deliberately vague? As I've noted multiple times on this forum, that is contrary to the canon of communication to be clear, precise, and, in fact, ethical in your communication. Ethical because being deliberately vague can lead to doublespeak and other forms of evasiveness.

Answer me this: If you were to refer to humanity, would you write humanity or mankind, or would you write mammals, even if you were specifically referring to people, not other mammals?

The first three articles are about American democracy. And American democracy is a republic. Therefore, words like republic and republicanism should dominate the writer's diction. And I am somewhat hesitant to use the word diction, as that is defined as the "choice of words especially with regard to correctness, clearness, or effectiveness," and since the writer appears to be either intentionally or ignorantly vague, they are clearly not being clear with their choice of words.

Please elaborate.

Specific examples "where the word democracy is used but it would be more accurate to use republic instead" would be all the articles that I posted, since they were specifically about American democracy, which is a republic. If the articles were about democracy in an international context or from an historical context, and the articles were about democracy from a general point of view, thus not addressing republicanism specifically, then, yes, the word democracy should predominate the diction, since the articles would be talking about democracy in general and thus using the word republic would be inaccurate and silly in such a general context. As a parallel, if a piece of scientific literature was talking about mammals in general, I would not expect the word humanity and mankind to predominate the writer's diction.

I am unsure of the factualness of that premise, but assuming that that is true, I would assume it is because we are a republic specifically. As I've noted several times on this thread, one canon of good communication is to be specific in your language. Generally, we are a democracy. Specifically, we are a republic. Generally, we are mammals. Specifically, we are human. Just as you would not substitute human for mammal, you should not substitute republic for democracy. Yet, for some reason, (I think I know what the reason is) the latter is perfectly acceptable. If you ate two apples, and someone asked you what you ate, "Would you respond by saying that you ate fruit? Or would you respond by saying that you ate some apples?"

 

What is it about this Democracy some wish to paint us when the Constitution is quite clear and guaranties were are a Republican form of government. A Federal system. A Republic is a Republic not a democracy. The founding fathers were adament were are not a democracy and nowhere in our two founding documents will you find the word Demcracy not even in the "Democratic Republic" phrase. We do not pledge allegiance to our Democrcy, or Democratic Republic we do so to our REPUBLIC alone.

 

Except it's the other side, MAGA cult, that wants to end the democratic process of election our president.

 

Yes I know Lincoln said that but the founding fathers didn't. They said we are a union of STATES. The People are one entity in it. Ultimate power is imbeded with the People. But the United States is a Republic and a Federal one at that and nothing else. Only one house of the Congress represents the people, at least a originally written, and that is the House of Representatives. The Senate is supposed to represent the States more specifically the State Governments with the Senators appointed by the state legislatures. That of course was changed under the 17th and IMHO should be rescinded by amendment

Heck the Constitution does not even evision you voting for your State's Electoral College votes let alone you voting directly for the President. The States select the President. The more you drill down to local government you will find more democratic processes such as you directly voting on a local tax increase.

 

REPEAL THE 17TH AMENDMENT!!!

 

Only within your State or even smaller House district. And originally not even that the state legislatures selected the Senators to represent the state government in Congress. We should go back to that.

 

So when the Constitution guaranties to each State the we are a Republican FORM of government that is only talking about how power is transferred? That elsewhere it says we are a Democracy? You learned this where?

 

How so?

 

I think the 17th Amendment is one of the most serious governmental mistakes in our history.

 

I think the 17th was a huge mistake.

 

So, what’s your point?

 

Neither term is more or less vague than the other, and only ever using one or the other in relation to the US could well introduce more vagueness and confusion. The simple fact is that the words mean different things and so each will be used in different circumstances.

That isn't the same thing. Humans are an explicit subset of mammals. If we're only speaking about something that applies to humans, using the word mammals would be flatly wrong.

If you were talking about how the US has free and fair elections (or not ) compared to places where they don't, you wouldn't call that republicanism. And if you were talking about how the US has an elected head of state compared to places that don't, you wouldn't call that democracy. The two words related to different (if interconnected) aspects of the overall system.

No, America is a republic. American democracy is a political concept. The first three articles are talking about the concept within America and so the name of that concept is obviously going to be used a lot. That is why the fourth article, talking about America as a democracy and as a republic, uses both terms more evenly (as far as I can tell up to the paywalls).

I meant specific sentences or paragraphs you believe would be improved by simply replacing the word "democracy" with the word "republic". In most cases that simply wouldn't work semantically, which is why I said simple word counts aren't relevant. After all, they could address your objection by just writing "republic, republic, republic...." at the end.

I've certainly seen people say things along the lines of "America isn't a democracy, it's a republic!" (often when claiming the US system is better than any other or in face of arguments for dropping the Electoral College). You're obviously not guilty of this but I do think your position could be both influenced by and influence such attitudes. That is why the clarity of using both words as appropriate is actually better than generally prioritising either one over the other.

 

No! Read again! In short what they mean is that we are not going to be a Monarchy.

 

Here is the definition of democracy:

democracy

: 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​

Notice the definition of democracy "in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly." This logically means that democracy has two subsets: pure democracy and republic, which I noted in the OP:

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​

Since republic is a subset of democracy, referring to our system as a democracy introduces vagueness, since democracy refers to both a pure democracy and a republic.

And as I've noted several times in this thread, republic is a subset of democracy.

Having an elected head of state is only one sense of the multiple senses of what is a republic.

You are using the same tactic as Golem: you are hyperfocusing on the first sense of the word republic, which is "a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president." But that is only one of a few senses of what makes up the meaning of the word republic. The sense that you and Golem are ignoring or distorting is the one I have repeated several times in this thread: "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."

Republic and democracy are both political concepts.

Let's use the article "We Had to Force the Constitution to Accommodate Democracy, and It Shows."

In the first paragraph, the writer writes:

"In August, President Biden met with several historians at the White House to discuss the threats facing American democracy."​

It would have been more clear to write:

"In August, President Biden met with several historians at the White House to discuss the threats facing American republicanism."​

In the third paragraph, the writer writes:

"But I have been thinking about what I would say to Biden about the threats to American democracy."​

It would have been more clear to write:

"But I have been thinking about what I would say to Biden about the threats to American republicanism."​

There are others, but I think you get the point.

 

Which seems to have worked. No monarchial states in the union.