Were are a Democracy. However...

Why are you telling ME that this thread is irrelevant? @Xyce opened this thread ! I, like him, believe it IS relevant. But feel free to convince @Xyce that it's not.

 

All you have to do is ask. I'll do it for you, if you're shy.

@Xyce , DID you open this thread in my honor? For some reason that I can't imagine, @FAW thinks it was I who inspired you to open it. Am I THAT important?

 

Because you are ALWAYS at the heart of these discussions. This is not a common topic on political chat boards. It is a common topic WITH YOU. You are involved in one of these discussions at least once per month, and probably more.

 

Oh, stop it, you're going to make me blush! You flatterer you....

Not many will agree that I am the heart of any discussions. But I'll take adulation any time I can get it!

 

You are free to be as delusional as you wish. It has never stopped you before, and I certainly dont expect it now.

 

Okay, duly noted, then I shall give your comment a more thorough going over:

You use Neil Armstrong's quote as a starting point and then transitioning into the distinction between "democracy" and "republic."

1. Connection Between Armstrong's Quote and Main Argument:
   • Your transition from discussing Armstrong's quote to the main argument about the use of "democracy" vs. "republic" feels abrupt. While your intention is to highlight the importance of specificity in language, the connection could be made more seamlessly.
2. Use of "Respectfully":
   • The word "respectfully" seems to be used incorrectly in your text. The correct term in this context would be "respectively."
3. Relevance of the Automobile Invention:
   • Your mention of the invention of the automobile by Karl Benz feels out of place. It's unclear how this relates to Armstrong's quote or the subsequent discussion about specificity in language.
4. Generalizations:
   • Your text makes broad generalizations, such as "using the word 'republic' is a hard thing for some people." Such statements could benefit from more nuance or evidence to support them.
5. Article Analysis:
   • Your analysis of the frequency of "democracy" vs. "republic" in various articles is interesting, but the conclusion that this is "clearly bad writing at best" is a strong assertion. It would be beneficial to delve deeper into why these choices might have been made by the authors or editors.
6. Concluding Remarks:
   • Your ending brings in the idea of brevity in writing, quoting Shakespeare. While the quote is apt, the transition to this idea feels a bit sudden. Your text could benefit from a more cohesive conclusion that ties all the points together.
7. Structure and Flow:
   • Your text covers multiple topics, from Armstrong's quote to the nature of American governance, to media analysis, and finally to writing principles. A clearer structure or segmentation might help the reader follow your train of thought more easily.
8. Tone:
   • The tone, especially towards the end, leans towards being critical without offering constructive feedback. While it's valid to critique, offering potential reasons or solutions might make your argument more compelling.

Overall, your text raises valid points about the importance of specificity and precision in language. However, it, itself, could benefit from a clearer structure, smoother transitions, and more nuanced arguments.

Better?

 

You never cite any of your research--at least so far in this thread.

The word "and" includes both people and their representatives. In direct democracies, there are no representatives. It's government directly by the people. Logically, given the word "and," your definition precludes pure democracies. Had you used the word "or", that would not preclude pure democracies. But you, the person who has supposedly done their research and consulted with the best and brightest minds of "Political Science [sic]" did not use "or"; you used "and." Actually, thinking about it further, the word "and" precludes both republics and pure democracies, since republic is never done directly by the people and their representatives; it always done through representation. So, your definition doesn't appear to apply to either republics or pure democracies. But, you know what, you've done all this research, right? You've consulted with the experts. Surely, therefore, you should have a lot of research to back up your definition of democracy as being "a form of government in which the decisions are made by the people and their elected representatives." Prove it. Provide me research that indicates that, and point to the part in any site you cite that backs up that definition, so I can confirm and possibly cross-check it. Go on, Mr. I've Done So Much Research, Don't Debate Me, Bro.

Since your definition precludes pure democracies, are you suggesting that pure democracies are not democracies?

 

You're changing the subject again. Ok.. I'll eliminate everything else, to see if you can concentrate ONLY on answering the question.

YOU said: "A republic being "a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president" is only one sense of the multiple senses of what the word republic means"

So...

Let's use North Korea as an example. Is North Korea a Republic according to the concept you use of "Republic"? Yes or no?

If your answer is "no", show us ANY sense of "Republic" from a reputable source that is NOT met by North Korea.

If North Korea is a Republic, your claim that " republic is a subset of democracy" is proven false UNLESS you believe that North Korea is a Democracy. And, if you do, then this discussion serves no purpose.

 

Don't change the subject. I was responding to your claim that you've done your research, which you indicate in your signature. Let me repeat my post, and please answer.

Here it is again:

The word "and" includes both people and their representatives. In direct democracies, there are no representatives. It's government directly by the people. Logically, given the word "and," your definition precludes pure democracies. Had you used the word "or", that would not preclude pure democracies. But you, the person who has supposedly done their research and consulted with the best and brightest minds of "Political Science [sic]" did not use "or"; you used "and." Actually, thinking about it further, the word "and" precludes both republics and pure democracies, since republic is never done directly by the people and their representatives; it always done through representation. So, your definition doesn't appear to apply to either republics or pure democracies. But, you know what, you've done all this research, right? You've consulted with the experts. Surely, therefore, you should have a lot of research to back up your definition of democracy as being "a form of government in which the decisions are made by the people and their elected representatives." Prove it. Provide me research that indicates that, and point to the part in any site you cite that backs up that definition. Go on, Mr. I've Done So Much Research, Don't Debate Me, Bro.

Since your definition precludes pure democracies, are you suggesting that pure democracies are not democracies?

 

I am not the topic of this thread or ANY thread.

Again:
YOU said: "A republic being "a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president" is only one sense of the multiple senses of what the word republic means"

So...

Let's use North Korea as an example. Is North Korea a Republic according to the concept you use of "Republic"? Yes or no?

If your answer is "no", show us ANY sense of "Republic" from a reputable source that is NOT met by North Korea.

If North Korea is a Republic, your claim that " republic is a subset of democracy" is proven false UNLESS you believe that North Korea is a Democracy. And, if you do, then this discussion serves no purpose.

 

Something as complicated as a government need not demand only a single word to describe it. "Republic" does not necessarily imply democracy. Democracy is stressed as the ultimate source of power, even if it's republic and constitutional in its mechanics.

In contrast, I would prefer a technocratic constitutional republic, in which smart people are found and serve to make policy/diplomacy, are constrained by something like a bill of rights and insulated from corruption, and make the decisions rather than idiots elected by average people.

 

You're evading the question. You, the person who has done so much research that you have to talk about it in your signature, are not backing up your definition of democracy.

I'll repeat it again. Again, please answer.

The word "and" includes both people and their representatives. In direct democracies, there are no representatives. It's government directly by the people. Logically, given the word "and," your definition precludes pure democracies. Had you used the word "or", that would not preclude pure democracies. But you, the person who has supposedly done their research and consulted with the best and brightest minds of "Political Science [sic]" did not use "or"; you used "and." Actually, thinking about it further, the word "and" precludes both republics and pure democracies, since republic is never done directly by the people and their representatives; it always done through representation. So, your definition doesn't appear to apply to either republics or pure democracies. But, you know what, you've done all this research, right? You've consulted with the experts. Surely, therefore, you should have a lot of research to back up your definition of democracy as being "a form of government in which the decisions are made by the people and their elected representatives." Prove it. Provide me research that indicates that, and point to the part in any site you cite that backs up that definition. Go on, Mr. I've Done So Much Research, Don't Debate Me, Bro.

Since your definition precludes pure democracies, are you suggesting that pure democracies are not democracies?

 

Absolutely evading it! Because I'M not the topic.

Ok, so looks you can't answer the question that IS the topic of the thread you opened.

My task is done. I don't think you'll be opening threads saying nonsense like " republic is a subset of democracy" any time soon. Because you KNOW what the question you can't answer is. But if you DO decide to open a thread about that any time in the future, be sure to open it answering the question.

BTW, in answer to your other question:

This is why there is no such thing as a direct democracy.

 

Direct democracy is another phrase for pure democracy:

"Direct democracy, also called pure democracy, forms of direct participation of citizens in democratic decision making, in contrast to indirect or representative democracy."​

No, wait, let me guess your rebuttal. Encyclopedias are wrong. Therefore, Britannica is wrong.

Jeez. You are fundamentally wrong about this topic.

Please, bow out. I am starting to suffer from second-hand embarrassment at this point.

 

When I say there is no such thing I mean in REALITY. In the dictionary, yes. There is a definition in the dictionary. Just like in the dictionary there is a definition for "Gremlins", but in reality they don't exist.

What I'm saying is that what YOU described doesn't exist in reality. You know, a country where "...there are no representatives. It's government directly by the people." NO such country exists.

.... uhm.... you DO know that gremlins don't exist, right? Just checking...

Anyway.... you were unable to answer the question. So this thread is moot.

 

But we're not a democracy, or a PURE DEMOCRACY as the OP defines it. Some use "representative democracy" to get around that. But even that is a stretch because once we elect or "representatives" they're pretty much on their own. We hope that act according to what they "promised" during the campaign, but that rarely happens. "Republic" as defined above is closer; We vote from someone and he/she rides off into the sunset and aligns himself with the Washington party infrastructure.

 

But this discussion is about the country's government structure, not individual representatives.

Maybe your participation ins moot, but others of us are having an interesting discussion.

 

e
Good point. IMHO "representative republic" is closest to real life. We vote for representatives and send them off. They then aact as the choose, mostly.
IMHO Any form of democracy would entail a far tighter control - through some mechanism the representative communication with his district on how to vote.

 

The OP explains this adequately. This is THEIR thread. The only blunder the poster made was to say that that Republic was a subset of Democracy. Any other questions, ask the opening poster.

 

Nice dodge. why isn't a representative republic a subset of Democracy, and yet you claim were are a democracy?

 

So the OP's point that the US is not a pure democracy is wrong?

 

That's not the claim. The claim is that "Republic" is a subset of "Democracy". In other words, what the poster claims would imply that ALL Republics are democracies. Which is obviously false.

 

What about the People's Democratic Republic of Korea?

 

Bingo!!!! That was the question that @Xyce was unable to answer.

 

For the folks at home, let's analyze the thought process on the definition of the word democracy, as defined by our friend Golem, who keeps mentioning me in this thread.

This definition of democracy precludes pure democracies, also known as direct democracies, since pure democracies are democracies "in which the power is exercised directly by the people rather than through representatives."

When I pointed out to Golem that this definition precludes pure democracies, he retorted:

In his retort, as you can tell, he is attempting to argue that pure democracies are not precluded in his definition. But when I point out that they are logically precluded in his definition, since he used the word and, which would rule out pure democracies from his definition, since there are no representatives in pure democracies, he now seems to be agreeing that pure democracies are, in fact, not democracies, since they apparently, to him (Mr. I've Done All the Research, But Don't Feel the Need to Cite Any Research), they don't exist in reality (or how he puts it, REALITY):

For someone who is so supposedly learned in the discipline of political science, for someone who has allegedly "personally consulted with professionals in Political Science [sic]" . . .

. . . I guess he's never heard of New England, where there are localities that practice direct democracy and have been doing so for nearly 400 years.

Is New England not real? Perhaps Amy Crawford, the author of that article in Slate, which I cited (see how I cite my research, Golem? You should try it.), imagined everything about witnessing the process of direct democracy in her article. Perhaps I imagined it in my political science class when I was studying political science in the days of yore. I mean, it can't be real, because Golem has declared that direct democracy is just as real as gremlins--and maybe even golems!