7 ms·

> I'm talking about America, with a so-called democracy far older than the USSR Technically America is not a democracy -- it's a federal republic composed of s

> I'm talking about America, with a so-called democracy far older than the USSR Technically America is not a democracy -- it's a federal republic composed of states with widely differing interpretations of democracy.

jowea 2y ago
Question: where does the idea that democracy and republic are incompatible comes from? I keep hearing this am curious where it started. Is it because the Founding Fathers wanted aristocratic elements to keep popular will at bay? To me the USA is obviously a (or maybe the) federal democratic republic. There is no contradiction. Sovereignity resides in the people and there's no monarch so it's a republic and elected representatives hold most of the power so it's a (representative) democracy.
- queuebert 2y ago
  Do you think we the people chose the presidential candidates we keep having? There are multiple levels of representation, and all of them are tainted by special interests and partisanship. The primary system can choose candidates however they wish -- the Constitution does not specify the method [1]. A Democratic challenger to Biden this time was blatantly refused ballot access in many states. Backroom deals can cause good candidates to drop out and support worse candidates (see Buttigieg dropping out in 2020 and supporting Biden, and then Biden appoints him SecTrans). Kamala Harris was among the worst performers in the 2020 Democratic primary, but for some reason she was chosen (not elected, mind you, but chosen by Biden's team) as Biden's running mate, so now the Democrats have no good choices. The Electoral College is winner-take-all in many places and the congressional districts are often gerrymandered to completely eliminate representation of the minority party. For example, Nashville had a Democrat representative, but after redistricting the city was split like a pizza among three mostly rural GOP districts to completely eliminate its member of Congress [2]. It is the capital of the state and largest city but has no member of Congress now. I'm glad you have such a positive view of US democracy, but many of us living here are extremely worried about our trajectory. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_pri... 2. https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2022-11-04/nashville-how-tennessees-blue-island-was-lost-in-a-sea-of-red https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2022-11-04/na...
- MichaelNolan 2y ago
  > Question: where does the idea that democracy and republic are incompatible comes from? It’s just a retort that American conservatives like to say whenever American liberals mention how undemocratic/unfair the electoral college or the senate is. There’s no real historical substance to the phrase. It only became common to hear after the 2000 and 2016 elections where republicans won the presidency but received fewer total votes, the same scenario which almsot happened in 2020 and could very well happen in 2024.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  >Sovereignity resides in the people and there's no monarch so it's a republic Sovereignty residing in the people is not a feature of a republic. The only thing that defines a republic is that it isn't a monarchy. If it's a republic and the government is elected by a democratic process, then it's a "democratic republic". And you don't need a republic to have a democratic state either: the UK and Japan are examples of this (both are monarchies).
  - defrost 2y ago
    The US system is a mini-monarchy .. as recognised by the founders from the outset, a number opposing the notion. https://csac.history.wisc.edu/document-collections/constitutional-debates/executive-branch/ https://csac.history.wisc.edu/document-collections/constitut... Coming from a post US "Washminister* system (Australia) the US "Little King" looks very much a daft arrangement as exemplified by the inability to fire a POTUS for poor performance | losing support, etc. We retained a symbolic monarch as a "nominal" head of State to bind the notion of a country over the transient seatings of Government but seeded very little in the way of real effective power to that monarch. As a country we've swapped Prime Ministers (politically equivilant here to a US President) on a dime wothout skipping a beat in managing the country.
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      >The US system is a mini-monarchy Think what you like about the effectiveness of the US system, but it's not a monarchy in any way, shape, or form. A monarchy requires power (or at least a position that's supposed to have power, as most modern monarchies are really just figureheads) to be inherited. Sure, once in a while US presidents get to that position partly because of family connections (FDR, GWB), but that's nothing like the way an actual monarchy operates.
      - defrost 2y ago
        What I think is irrelevant, I'm not even USAian, I paraphrased an opinion held by the anti-Federalist founders held during the (US) constitutional debates. Clearly these were crazy people far divorced from reality as we know it modern times: During the ratification debates, Antifederalists charged that the President would become an elected monarch, that cabals would develop to ensure his reelection, and that the presidential veto power would be abused. They further feared that presidential power to grant pardons would allow the president to conspire with others in treasonable activities with impunity. I mean, really? Can you even imagine anything like that happening?

jowea 2y ago

Question: where does the idea that democracy and republic are incompatible comes from? I keep hearing this am curious where it started. Is it because the Founding Fathers wanted aristocratic elements to keep popular will at bay? To me the USA is obviously a (or maybe the) federal democratic republic. There is no contradiction. Sovereignity resides in the people and there's no monarch so it's a republic and elected representatives hold most of the power so it's a (representative) democracy.

queuebert 2y ago
Do you think we the people chose the presidential candidates we keep having? There are multiple levels of representation, and all of them are tainted by special interests and partisanship. The primary system can choose candidates however they wish -- the Constitution does not specify the method [1]. A Democratic challenger to Biden this time was blatantly refused ballot access in many states. Backroom deals can cause good candidates to drop out and support worse candidates (see Buttigieg dropping out in 2020 and supporting Biden, and then Biden appoints him SecTrans). Kamala Harris was among the worst performers in the 2020 Democratic primary, but for some reason she was chosen (not elected, mind you, but chosen by Biden's team) as Biden's running mate, so now the Democrats have no good choices. The Electoral College is winner-take-all in many places and the congressional districts are often gerrymandered to completely eliminate representation of the minority party. For example, Nashville had a Democrat representative, but after redistricting the city was split like a pizza among three mostly rural GOP districts to completely eliminate its member of Congress [2]. It is the capital of the state and largest city but has no member of Congress now. I'm glad you have such a positive view of US democracy, but many of us living here are extremely worried about our trajectory. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_pri... 2. https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2022-11-04/nashville-how-tennessees-blue-island-was-lost-in-a-sea-of-red https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2022-11-04/na...
MichaelNolan 2y ago
> Question: where does the idea that democracy and republic are incompatible comes from? It’s just a retort that American conservatives like to say whenever American liberals mention how undemocratic/unfair the electoral college or the senate is. There’s no real historical substance to the phrase. It only became common to hear after the 2000 and 2016 elections where republicans won the presidency but received fewer total votes, the same scenario which almsot happened in 2020 and could very well happen in 2024.
shiroiushi 2y ago
>Sovereignity resides in the people and there's no monarch so it's a republic Sovereignty residing in the people is not a feature of a republic. The only thing that defines a republic is that it isn't a monarchy. If it's a republic and the government is elected by a democratic process, then it's a "democratic republic". And you don't need a republic to have a democratic state either: the UK and Japan are examples of this (both are monarchies).
- defrost 2y ago
  The US system is a mini-monarchy .. as recognised by the founders from the outset, a number opposing the notion. https://csac.history.wisc.edu/document-collections/constitutional-debates/executive-branch/ https://csac.history.wisc.edu/document-collections/constitut... Coming from a post US "Washminister* system (Australia) the US "Little King" looks very much a daft arrangement as exemplified by the inability to fire a POTUS for poor performance | losing support, etc. We retained a symbolic monarch as a "nominal" head of State to bind the notion of a country over the transient seatings of Government but seeded very little in the way of real effective power to that monarch. As a country we've swapped Prime Ministers (politically equivilant here to a US President) on a dime wothout skipping a beat in managing the country.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    >The US system is a mini-monarchy Think what you like about the effectiveness of the US system, but it's not a monarchy in any way, shape, or form. A monarchy requires power (or at least a position that's supposed to have power, as most modern monarchies are really just figureheads) to be inherited. Sure, once in a while US presidents get to that position partly because of family connections (FDR, GWB), but that's nothing like the way an actual monarchy operates.
    - defrost 2y ago
      What I think is irrelevant, I'm not even USAian, I paraphrased an opinion held by the anti-Federalist founders held during the (US) constitutional debates. Clearly these were crazy people far divorced from reality as we know it modern times: During the ratification debates, Antifederalists charged that the President would become an elected monarch, that cabals would develop to ensure his reelection, and that the presidential veto power would be abused. They further feared that presidential power to grant pardons would allow the president to conspire with others in treasonable activities with impunity. I mean, really? Can you even imagine anything like that happening?