NationStates Jolt Archive

We got into an argument in this thread (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=429431) over whether or not a republic is a form of democracy, I know it's just semantics but I was wondering what you thought.

I don't think a republic is a form of democracy because, although the people elect the representatives, they don't actually govern the nation. But others say that it is because the people are involved.

Hahaha, you started a thread on this? I wasn't aware this was debatable. By definition, a republic can be a democracy as well... then again, it can also not be a democracy. It depends. In the case of the United States, which started this whole argument, we are both, because we are technically a Democratic Republic - in laymen's terms, a republic that is run democratically.

In democracy, everybody votes on everything. So the answer is: Nein!

A republic is as close to a democracy anyone wants to get. You want a true democracy? try it at home. Every decision from what to eat for dinner to what is watched on TV. to when bedtime is has to be voted on each and every time, and Majority rules on the outcome. then image that on a government scale.

A Republic CAN be considered a Democracy because you are still Electing your representatives.

In democracy, everybody votes on everything. So the answer is: Nein!

Wrong, simply fucking wrong! Why am I the only one debating this that speaks English? A direct democracy, direct democracy, direct fucking democracy is where the people vote on leaders. There are other kinds, such as where people elect officials (like in the U.S.) and representatives to vote on certain things for them. These kinds are no more or less a democracy than a direct democracy. A democratic republic - republic - and a representative democracy are two examples of this.

Republic- Government conntrolled by elected represenatives who may(or may not) represent the will ofthe people.

Democracy- Government whos rulers are elected by all citizens and represent the will of the people.

Any way, I put no.

Okay, look at it this way: ever heard the old math phrase, or some variant of it, "A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not [necessarily] a square?" That's kind of how republics and democracies are related. A republic is a democracy - a form of it, at least, most of the time - but a democracy is not [necessarily] a republic. In the words of Ben Affleck and countless others, "Am I getting through to you at all?"

It is democratic, what with the elections and all, but not strictly a Democracy. I say that to pay homage to the great and wise men in Athens who pioneered a truly democratic system.
Say Republic - think Rome
Say Democracy - think Athens

It's just good PR to say that they are spreading "democracy" when in reality they are spreading the less sexy sounding Republic.

Oh, and for those on the fence, the CIA world factbook lists the United States of America as a Constitutionally-Based Federal Republic. So ha. :D

Okay, look at it this way: ever heard the old math phrase, or some variant of it, "A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not [necessarily] a square?" That's kind of how republics and democracies are related. A republic is a democracy - a form of it, at least, most of the time - but a democracy is not [necessarily] a republic.
I get what you're saying here, but a republic is not a form of democracy because the people actully rule. Many times republics will use democratic processes, such as voting, to elect their officials, but that doesn't change the fact that the people do not rule.

There are multiple definitions for both "republic" and "democracy". So yes and no.

I get what you're saying here, but a republic is not a form of democracy because the people actully rule. Many times republics will use democratic processes, such as voting, to elect their officials, but that doesn't change the fact that the people do not rule.

My point is, not all democracies require direct rule by the people. Ever heard of an indirect democracy? That's a democracy where the people don't rule directly. The people still rule, just like in most republics, they just don't do it in the close-minded way you seem to think they have to for them to qualify as a democracy.

The people still rule, just like in most republics, they just don't do it in the close-minded way you seem to think they have to for them to qualify as a democracy.

How is a guy sitting in a big house making all the decisions for the people, the people ruling?

How is a guy sitting in a big house making all the decisions for the people, the people ruling?

Maybe because the people picked that guy? For lack of a better phrase for this occasion: fuckin' duh.

Besides, it's closer to six hundred people making those decisions, all of whom were elected by the people, at least in the case of the country which started this pointless debate.

A Republic just means that it's not a monarchy (or an oligarchy, I suppose). We've got plenty of non-democratic republics in the world -- China, N. Korea, Cuba, Syria -- but by the same token we have many democratic monarchies, such as the Netherlands, the UK, Norway, Spain ...

Maybe because the people picked that guy? For lack of a better phrase for this occasion: fuckin' duh.
The people don't really pick the president anymore. They are given a choice between two candidates that both suck and have to pick the lesser of two evils.

I suppose that might only be America, but that's really what this discussion is all about.

The people don't really pick the president anymore. They are given a choice between two candidates that both suck and have to pick the lesser of two evils.

I suppose that might only be America, but that's really what this discussion is all about.

The choice may be a fucked up one, but they still get a choice. Besides, it's the same way in a direct democracy - you think direct democracies automatically have to be nonpartisan, too? Sheesh.

Maybe because the people picked that guy? For lack of a better phrase for this occasion: fuckin' duh.



For someone willing to resort to cursing and denigrating comments, it is quite astounding how wrong you are.

The President of the United States of America is never elected by 'the people', and probably never will be.

The President of the United States of America is never elected by 'the people', and probably never will be.

Sure he is -- indirectly. Just as a representative democracy is still a democracy because the people govern indirectly.

For someone willing to resort to cursing and denigrating comments, it is quite astounding how wrong you are.
For someone that places himself on a pedestal and acts as if he is above anyone that curses, you have an apparently minimal command of the English language: why is it astounding that someone who curses is wrong? That makes no sense. You should have said, "I'm not surprised to find that you are wrong," or something of that nature.

The President of the United States of America is never elected by 'the people', and probably never will be.

Yes, he is. You see, we have this thing called the electoral college, and this electoral college is made up of individuals who cast their vote in favor of - guess who - the candidate that the people elected in their district! Imagine that.

I love people with a holier-than-thou attitude who, in reality, are completely ignorant.

The electoral college is not exactly by the people. That is why someone can lose the popular vote but still win the presidential election. Actually I think that the electoral college is a stupid system anyway.

A "Republic" is not a "Democracy". The two words signify different things.

Republics are rulled by representation. The "rulership" can be by appointment or vote; it does not matter which. Democratic principles play little part in the core concept itself.

The recently coined term "Direct Democracy" is redundant. "Democracy" by its very nature is "direct".

"Representative Democracies"/"Democratic Republics" exist in the "grey" area between a Democracy (Macedonian City-States of Post-Alexandrian Greece) and the Republic (pre-Julian Rome). Combining aspects of the two.

The recently coined term "Direct Democracy" is redundant. "Democracy" by its very nature is "direct".

"Representative Democracies"/"Democratic Republics" exist in the "grey" area between a Democracy (Macedonian City-States of Post-Alexandrian Greece) and the Republic (pre-Julian Rome). Combining aspects of the two.

Democracy is not at all direct in nature, it is simply made so by people ignorant of its processes. Nowhere was it ever said in the history of history that democracy need be direct. There are many forms of it, and not all of them are new. Sorry, try again.

Not necessarily - A republic is not needed for democracy (Britain) and democracy is not needed for a republic (China) - a republic is just a country without a monarch.

Not necessarily - A republic is not needed for democracy (Britain) and democracy is not needed for a republic (China) - a republic is just a country without a monarch.

As for the Britain part, absolutely correct. As for the China part, that's debatable. To include China as a Republic is questionable. That's like considering the USSR socialist, when in reality it wasn't, just because that's what it called itself. The dictionary.com definition you probably looked up is not entirely accurate - it's extremely loose.

Democracy is not at all direct in nature, it is simply made so by people ignorant of its processes. Nowhere was it ever said in the history of history that democracy need be direct. There are many forms of it, and not all of them are new. Sorry, try again.

"Democracy" was coined by the City-States of Macedonia. So you're automatically wrong. Post-Alexandrian Macedonia defines "Democracy" as a principle; just as Plato and Pre-Julian Rome defines "Republic".

Direct Democracy= "Democracy" as coined by the Macedonian City-States (speaking Greek; which is where the word "Democratia" [Democratic] originates).

"Democratia" is not representative.... Never was... Not by the core meaning of the word.

"Republic" is from Latin, and is defined by operation of the Representative Senate of Rome (Pre-Julian)...

Merely because you've scewed the historic meaning of the two terms; does give license to think I am wrong. I am historically correct. And you simply are not.

Parialmentary and other forms of Representation; have similarities to principles of the "Democratia" and the Republic.... But are not, in purity; either... But a meshing of both concepts. Hense why they are "Democratic Republics/Representative Democracies"... And not merely "Democracies"....

Not necessarily - A republic is not needed for democracy (Britain) and democracy is not needed for a republic (China) - a republic is just a country without a monarch.

Wrongo...

Both the Roman Republic; and Plato's Republic (where the term orignates) has a "Monarch"; they just don't have a "inherited" Monarch....

The "official" definitions from CIA World Fact Book (2005):

Republic - a representative democracy in which the people's elected deputies (representatives), not the people themselves, vote on legislation.

Democracy - a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but which is usually exercised indirectly through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed.

Democratic republic - a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.

"Democracy" was coined by the City-States of Macedonia. So you're automatically wrong. Post-Alexandrian Macedonia defines "Democracy" as a principle; just as Plato and Pre-Julian Rome defines "Republic".

Direct Democracy= "Democracy" as coined by the Macedonian City-States (speaking Greek; which is where the word "Democratia" [Democratic] originates).

"Democratia" is not representative.... Never was... Not by the core meaning of the word.

"Republic" is from Latin, and is defined by operation of the Representative Senate of Rome (Pre-Julian)...

Merely because you've scewed the historic meaning of the two terms; does give license to think I am wrong. I am historically correct. And you simply are not.

Parialmentary and other forms of Representation; have similarities to principles of the "Democratia" and the Republic.... But are not, in purity; either... But a meshing of both concepts. Hense why they are "Democratic Republics/Representative Democracies"... And not merely "Democracies"....

Okay, first thing's first, the concept of democracy was around for years before Macedonia coined it, coined being the key word, as words are coined long after they originate, and often end up meaning slightly or entirely different things - just like phrases are coined. Secondly, democracy is an evolved and varied definition, and is not the same as democratia. As far as English is concerned, which, last I checked, is the language in which we are debating, you are wrong. Democracy does not have to be direct. Many words from ancient times developed into English words that mean slightly different things. This is not uncommon. The core meaning of democratia is all but irrelevant hear, because when the language changed, the meaning did as well.

The "official" definitions from CIA World Fact Book (2005):

Republic - a representative democracy in which the people's elected deputies (representatives), not the people themselves, vote on legislation.

Democracy - a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but which is usually exercised indirectly through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed.

Democratic republic - a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.

Piss, I've been bested. I should have thought of that. Good job, Dragons Bay. See, Tekania, the official definitions as of this century and as they are defined by this (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=English%20language) language.

Wrongo...

Both the Roman Republic; and Plato's Republic (where the term orignates) has a "Monarch"; they just don't have a "inherited" Monarch....

Who was the King of Rome after Tarquin was driven out?

PS If you're going to say that Consuls were kings, you're stretching the definition too far.

For someone that places himself on a pedestal and acts as if he is above anyone that curses, you have an apparently minimal command of the English language: why is it astounding that someone who curses is wrong? That makes no sense. You should have said, "I'm not surprised to find that you are wrong," or something of that nature.

Yes, he is. You see, we have this thing called the electoral college, and this electoral college is made up of individuals who cast their vote in favor of - guess who - the candidate that the people elected in their district! Imagine that.

I love people with a holier-than-thou attitude who, in reality, are completely ignorant.

My, my. You are an excitable one, aren't you?

Sorry - where was it I claimed a pedestal? And, how, pray tell, did I act like I was 'above' anyone?

Personally, I don't think 'cursing' ever helps an argument... on the contrary - it seems to lessen the effect of that side of the debate, every time someone resorts to inflammatory language.

But, whatever works for you, I guess.

I'm also a little curious as to how it is I am supposed to have "apparently minimal command of the English language"? Just because you didn't like something I said, I wonder?

I think perhaps you misunderstood my first post - the whole point being that a person who asserts their 'side' so vehemently should, at least, make sure that they aren't papering-over holes in their argument.

You seem to understand that the president is elected by the electoral college... and you seem to understand that the electors are elected by the 'people'. I'm not sure how (or, maybe, why?) you choose to believe that that somehow translates to the President being elected by the 'people'...

Clearly, 'the people' actually have no input on the electoral vote. All they can do, is to chose electors that they THINK will cast their votes in favour of their prefered candidate... and they usually do. But, they certainly do not HAVE to.

Thanks for your input... I assume the 'holier-than-thou' reference was aimed at me... although I don't really understand why this should be so. You are also, obviously, incorrect as to my being 'completely ignorant'... but, I guess it fits the profile, no?

Republic can be either Democratic ruled or Totalitarian ruled.

Republic just means a country without a monarch.

That's why I didn't vote.

A republic is as close to a democracy anyone wants to get. You want a true democracy? try it at home. Every decision from what to eat for dinner to what is watched on TV. to when bedtime is has to be voted on each and every time, and Majority rules on the outcome. then image that on a government scale.

A Republic CAN be considered a Democracy because you are still Electing your representatives.
Yes. But those people you elect don't have to do what you tell them. They always vote for what they want or for what some rich special interest wants. It is never for what the people want.

You guys are absolutely insane! Please, people, take a civics class. Democracy was around LOOOOOOOONG before the post-Alexander period, indeed, hundreds maybe thousands of years prior, but especially noted that Athens before Alexander had a direct democracy. And please, if you're going to try to pull the Classics card, at least know a little something about it! Plato didn't coin the term Republic, nor is it where the word came from. Republic actually comes from the Latin, Res Publicae, or Matters of the People, as a translation of Politeia, the book commonly called Republic in English written by Plato. Politeia actually means that which pertains to the city/citizen, ultimately from the word polis meaning city. By definition, a democracy is where the people hold the power by voting. Direct Democracy is where the people vote on legislature, and Representative Democracy is where the people vote for representatives to vote on the legislature. A republic is an organization of several states that make up a union for governing. A federal republic is a republic centered around a capital, and a confederate republic is a republic with no or very little consolidation.

Debate over.

I was doing a little research into what you said, Tekania, and I found this site quite interesting, specifically where it defines what an ancient democratia truly is, so I figured I'd link you to it (http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-dgra/0397.html) so that the next time you try to argue your point based on history and alternate languages, you'll at least do so correctly.

Doesn't say much about Macedonia coining the term; apparently, that wasn't important enough to include in an encyclopedia of ancient shit. Does point out what is required for a government to qualify as a democracy, however:

In a passage of Herodotus (iii. 80), where we pro*bably have the ideas of the writer himself, the characteristics of a democracy are specified to be— 1. equality of legal rights (iffovopiri) ; 2. the ap*pointment of magistrates by lot ; 3. the account*ability of all magistrates and officers ; 4. the refer*ence of all public matters to the decision of _ the community at large. Aristotle also... says... In another passage..., [the cut out parts are in ancient Greek or are referrences to Greek documents; these are then continued in English] after mentioning the essential principles on which a democracy is based, he goes on to say: " The following points are characteristic of a democracy ; that all magistrates should be chosen out of the whole body of citizens ; that all should rule each, and each in turn rule all ; that either all magistra*cies, or those not requiring experience and profes*sional knowledge, should be assigned by lot ; that there should be no property qualification, or but a very small one, for filling any magistracy; that the same man should not fill the same office twice, or should fill offices but few times, and but few of*fices, except in the case of military commands ; that all, or as many as possible of the magistracies, should be of brief duration ; that all citizens should be qualified to serve as dicasts ; that the supreme power in everything should reside in the public assembly, and that no magistrate should be en*trusted with irresponsible power except in very small matters.

Let's look at this with respect to the United States. Equality of legal rights, check, obviously. The appointment of magistrates by lot, check - mayors, governors, et cetera. The account*ability of all magistrates and officers, check, kind of, sometimes. The refer*ence of all public matters to the decision of the community at large, check - the public is referred to when dealing with public matters, as they elect politicians that support their opinions on such subjects; Herodotus doesn't say that this reference must take place directly. Looks like we meet the basic shit required to be considered a democratia according to Herodotus.

There are some things that are also things characteristic of a democratia, as detailed by Aristotle. Let's see how many of those we meet, shall we?

That all magistrates should be chosen out of the whole body of citizens, check, obviously. That all should rule each, and each in turn rule all, check, definitely. That either all magistra*cies, or those not requiring experience and profes*sional knowledge, should be assigned by lot, check, for the same reasons mentioned with respect to Herodotus. That there should be no property qualification, or but a very small one, for filling any magistracy, check - you don't have to be rich here, it's just helpful. That the same man should not fill the same office twice, or should fill offices but few times, and but few of*fices, except in the case of military commands, no check, as mayors, senators, and representatives fail to meet this standard. That all, or as many as possible of the magistracies, should be of brief duration, check, except in the case of reelections. That all citizens should be qualified to serve as dicasts, check via jurors. That the supreme power in everything should reside in the public assembly, and that no magistrate should be en*trusted with irresponsible power except in very small matters, check and check - the former, because supreme power rests in the people via whom they elect into office; the latter, because no power is given to elected officials that will be largely abused.

In conclusion, the CIA says that yes, a republic can and is, in many cases, the same thing as a democracy, and vice versa. So as far as modern times and the English language are concerned, the answer is, most of the time, a resounding yes.

In conclusion, furthermore, the democratic republic that the United States would, in ancient times, meet all prerequisites to be considered a democratia, and would also show eight of the nine characteristics detailed by Aristotle as common in a democratia. So as far as ancient times and the Greek language is concerned, the United States is, by definition, a democratia, and almost fully-characteristic of what it meant to be one in ancient times.

If you guys are talking about the US, the US was not founded to be a democracy. Jefferson and the other founders had this view in common when they created the United States:

"Not all people are fit to participate in self government of the nation."

At the time, those not fit, meant any person who did not have property or wealth. I would say women, but some states at the time allowed women to hold to hold public office though none actually did. The laws banning women didn't come until about 1810ish.
The US in its infancy was actually a republican oligarchy. But it was not supposed to remain an oligarchy. Rights were to be extended when society was ready for it. But society must always be based on sound morality. As the founders themselves stated often.
The US remains a republic to this day. Not all US citizens are allowed to vote.
Unlike, democracies, you can also lose your right to vote.
While the US has made many important strides, one thing has not really changed much. The US still remains an oligarchy where it is the rich who decide who gets elected and who doesn't. Through the people they support, it is the rich who decide what laws are passed. Its been this way for the last 200 years of our nation's existence. The only reason the rich have extended the vote to the non property owners, to blacks, to women, to non wealthy, even to a portion of the young. Is that it takes the pressure off them to yield power. As long people think America is a democracy responsive to the will of the majority, the rich who truly govern America will remain the sole rulers of the US.
They know the typical person is going to be apathetic and not give a damn. They know how to pull people's strings and use them pawns in political chess games. The Democrats and Republicans do it all the time. The only difference now is that the Reps have become better at it than the Democrats. Though, if you really look at voting records, the two sides have been essentially voting the same way on the issues. While they take the rest of America for a ride with their false differences.
Just look at all the corporations and multinationals that run the Democratic Party. I need not say anything about the Republican Party. The two parties are run by the same types. Rich people, multinationals, and big corporations, run both parties.
If you remove the false imagery and propaganda, you find that they are actually one party, being misrepresented as two. Which means that America is actually a one party dominated system.
Yeah, you got some extremists that are trying to make the Democratic Party different. But all they are doing is killing the Democratic Party.

Americans are nothing more than puppets complacently going about their business while the elites and the wealthy decide what should or should not be allowed in this nation. The real rulers of the US don't give a damn whether Miss Average Jane should be allowed to have an abortion. They only care if rich women should be allowed to have abortions. Nor do they give a damn about gay marriage. Its just a tool for them to sucker you into voting for them or against their opponent.
Moral values? Give me a break. Show me one single elitist or American politician that can trully be said to have strong values. Though Bush comes close, he often compromises with evil as much as the dems do.

The only thing that prevents them from violating certain rights is that the Constitution protects the rights of individuals from being banned by the majority.

The US is not a democracy. It is an oligarchic republic in which it is the rich who decide who holds what office and what laws are passed.

Those of you who really think there is any difference betweens reps and dems are being taken for a ride.

I'm also a little curious as to how it is I am supposed to have "apparently minimal command of the English language"? Just because you didn't like something I said, I wonder?
I explained this, so obviously you can't read, either. You don't point something out that should most definitely degrade an argument, and then act surprised that it did exactly what you implied it should do. That ain't proper speakin'.

You seem to understand that the president is elected by the electoral college... and you seem to understand that the electors are elected by the 'people'. I'm not sure how (or, maybe, why?) you choose to believe that that somehow translates to the President being elected by the 'people'...

Clearly, 'the people' actually have no input on the electoral vote. All they can do, is to chose electors that they THINK will cast their votes in favour of their prefered candidate... and they usually do. But, they certainly do not HAVE to.

Clearly, you don't understand the meaning of "clearly," because what you are saying is hardly clear to anyone that speaks English. When voting for their President of choice, the people cause the electors to vote the same way the people did in that state - and this has been the case in almost the entire history of the electoral college. Thus, the people do, in effect, have an impact on the electoral vote.

Thanks for your input... I assume the 'holier-than-thou' reference was aimed at me... although I don't really understand why this should be so. You are also, obviously, incorrect as to my being 'completely ignorant'... but, I guess it fits the profile, no?

I was also, obviously, correct, seeing as almost everything you wrote hear was incorrect.

That all magistrates should be chosen out of the whole body of citizens, check, obviously.

Wrong on the first point. Good start.

Aldranin there is just one thing about what you are saying.
That is that electors don't have to pick the same person the people back home chose. The people can vote for Bill Clinton but the electors, have the constitutional right to give the Presidency to George Bush.

a republic is just a state with no monarch. a democracy with a monarch, such as britain, is not a republic, so its members are subjects, rather than citizens, and a democracy with no monarch, such as the us, is a republic, with citizens. the USSR was a republic, as was nazi germany, as neither had kings, just dictators.

i think thats accurate.

I explained this, so obviously you can't read, either. You don't point something out that should most definitely degrade an argument, and then act surprised that it did exactly what you implied it should do. That ain't proper speakin'.


On the subject of being able to read... you seem to have neglected to read the (I thought, quite lucid) explanation that followed the brief passage you responded to.

I guess you don't want mere facts to get in the way?


Clearly, you don't understand the meaning of "clearly," because what you are saying is hardly clear to anyone that speaks English. When voting for their President of choice, the people cause the electors to vote the same way the people did in that state - and this has been the case in almost the entire history of the electoral college. Thus, the people do, in effect, have an impact on the electoral vote.


I think it is fairly clear to anyone that speaks English.

People vote for electors.

Electors vote for the President.

Electors usually cast their votes along party lines.

They don't have to.

Thus, there is no DIRECT connection between which representative I elect for my local state government, and how my 'vote' is represented in the Presidential election.


I was also, obviously, correct, seeing as almost everything you wrote hear was incorrect.

Whatever helps you sleep, my friend.

If you guys are talking about the US, the US was not founded to be a democracy. Jefferson and the other founders had this view in common when they created the United States:

"Not all people are fit to participate in self government of the nation."

At the time, those not fit, meant any person who did not have property or wealth. I would say women, but some states at the time allowed women to hold to hold public office though none actually did. The laws banning women didn't come until about 1810ish.
The US in its infancy was actually a republican oligarchy. But it was not supposed to remain an oligarchy. Rights were to be extended when society was ready for it. But society must always be based on sound morality. As the founders themselves stated often.

We're talking about the U.S. today, buddy.

The US remains a republic to this day. Not all US citizens are allowed to vote.

All U.S. citizens can vote that have not given up their rights as U.S. citizens.

Unlike, democracies, you can also lose your right to vote.

There is nothing in the modern definitions of democracies that says you can't lose your right to vote.

While the US has made many important strides, one thing has not really changed much. The US still remains an oligarchy where it is the rich who decide who gets elected and who doesn't. Through the people they support, it is the rich who decide what laws are passed. Its been this way for the last 200 years of our nation's existence. The only reason the rich have extended the vote to the non property owners, to blacks, to women, to non wealthy, even to a portion of the young. Is that it takes the pressure off them to yield power. As long people think America is a democracy responsive to the will of the majority, the rich who truly govern America will remain the sole rulers of the US.

The rich people are out to get you, trust me! Because we all know they're allowed to bribe people, and we all know that a rich guy having his comrades give a speech on something is going to change that many people's minds.

They know the typical person is going to be apathetic and not give a damn. They know how to pull people's strings and use them pawns in political chess games. The Democrats and Republicans do it all the time. The only difference now is that the Reps have become better at it than the Democrats. Though, if you really look at voting records, the two sides have been essentially voting the same way on the issues. While they take the rest of America for a ride with their false differences.

Whittier's right, here. The Democrats and Republicans are the same. So vote Republican, it doesn't matter, anyway.

Just look at all the corporations and multinationals that run the Democratic Party. I need not say anything about the Republican Party. The two parties are run by the same types. Rich people, multinationals, and big corporations, run both parties.

"But... but... corporations... and global warming..."

Americans are nothing more than puppets complacently going about their business while the elites and the wealthy decide what should or should not be allowed in this nation. The real rulers of the US don't give a damn whether Miss Average Jane should be allowed to have an abortion. They only care if rich women should be allowed to have abortions. Nor do they give a damn about gay marriage. Its just a tool for them to sucker you into voting for them or against their opponent.

Hey! That sounds like that really awful movie, The Stepford Wives.

Moral values? Give me a break. Show me one single elitist or American politician that can trully be said to have strong values. Though Bush comes close, he often compromises with evil as much as the dems do.
I like Bush, but he doesn't even come close. He doesn't love you either, Whittier.

The only thing that prevents them from violating certain rights is that the Constitution protects the rights of individuals from being banned by the majority.

Good thing those homeless people on the Supreme Court keep upholding it... wait, those guys and girls are pretty rich, too. Why would they want to protect us, I thought this was some big conspiracy.

The US is not a democracy. It is an oligarchic republic in which it is the rich who decide who holds what office and what laws are passed.

You're right, all definitions and logic aside, the U.S. is not a democracy.

Those of you who really think there is any difference betweens reps and dems are being taken for a ride.

Arrrrrglegarglegargle... raaah. :mad:


What is this guy smoking, seriously? I know some kids that might want some. :headbang:

Wrong on the first point. Good start.

How the fuck so? Magistrates do come from our citizens.

Aldranin there is just one thing about what you are saying.
That is that electors don't have to pick the same person the people back home chose. The people can vote for Bill Clinton but the electors, have the constitutional right to give the Presidency to George Bush.

I didn't leave that out... I said most of the time... learn to read.

On the subject of being able to read... you seem to have neglected to read the (I thought, quite lucid) explanation that followed the brief passage you responded to.

I guess you don't want mere facts to get in the way?

Are you high? I didn't skip anything, except for the pointless rant you did on cursing in debates.

I think it is fairly clear to anyone that speaks English.

People vote for electors.

Electors vote for the President.

Electors usually cast their votes along party lines.

They don't have to.

Thus, there is no DIRECT connection between which representative I elect for my local state government, and how my 'vote' is represented in the Presidential election.

Like I said, electors have strayed an infinitesimal number of times in the entire history of the United States Electoral College, and it has never made a difference in the outcome of an election. Thus, to say that the people don't have any influence is simply fucking wrong, you daft dolt, and that's what you originally said.

Whatever helps you sleep, my friend.

Why are you bringing the TV being turned on and windows being shut into this mess?

How the fuck so? Magistrates do come from our citizens.

Well done.

That's not what you said, though... now, is it?

First, my friend... you are breaching rules, here.

And, I don't mean the common courtesy or ettiquette that SHOULD be guiding your debate... I mean the actual 'rules', as set by Jolt, and (more specifically) by the Nationstates forum.

****Flaming is not acceptable.****

It was one thing when you were just foul-mouthed in your opinion, but to actually begin calling someone a "daft dolt" is to step over the line.

Kindly moderate your tone, or risk Moderator intervention.


Are you high? I didn't skip anything, except for the pointless rant you did on cursing in debates.


Not high, no. You have now managed to skip the same part twice... so, I guess it wasn't just lack of attention the first time.


Like I said, electors have strayed an infinitesimal number of times in the entire history of the United States Electoral College, and it has never made a difference in the outcome of an election. Thus, to say that the people don't have any influence is simply fucking wrong, you daft dolt, and that's what you originally said.


The people do not have any influence. It really IS that simple.

You can vote for an elector that you BELIEVE will represent your choice of President, but there is no compulsion for that individual to so vote.

I have already granted that straying is rare, but it isn't impossible... and several candidates talked about crossing party lines BEFORE the last election.


Why are you bringing the TV being turned on and windows being shut into this mess?

If 'white noise' is what you need...

Are you high? I didn't skip anything, except for the pointless rant you did on cursing in debates.

I think perhaps you misunderstood my first post - the whole point being that a person who asserts their 'side' so vehemently should, at least, make sure that they aren't papering-over holes in their argument.

There's the part you skipped.

Like I said, electors have strayed an infinitesimal number of times in the entire history of the United States Electoral College, and it has never made a difference in the outcome of an election. Thus, to say that the people don't have any influence is simply fucking wrong, you daft dolt, and that's what you originally said.

Care to explain then how Bush won the 2000 election?

Well done.

That's not what you said, though... now, is it?

"God, damn it, are you fucking with me!?" I did say that, I didn't explain it because it was quite obviously true.

The people do not have any influence. It really IS that simple.

Yes, they do, because they are aggressively expected to vote the way their state wants them to, and they almost always have, so obviously the aggressive expectation works pretty damn well, and obviously the people do have a say. Do you think it's just a coincidence that electors vote the way they do or something?

There's the part you skipped.

I was supposed to reply to that? He didn't make any points that were remotely relevant, why the hell should I waste my time on something so petty and inane?

Care to explain then how Bush won the 2000 election?

He won the majority of the electoral college, and thus the majority of the people grouped in parts. If it were not this way, it would become possible for every single area except for one, when grouped, to prefer one candidate, while the one tipped the scales with the extremity with which they preferred the other. Plus, only high-population states would receive attention and would be advertised in, because their minimal population's majority would not be as worthwhile a target as their entire electoral sum.

It had absolutely nothing to do with members of the electoral college being unfaithful, as you seem to be implying it did. They did their job, and Bush won. I maintain, never has a lack of electoral scruples caused a change in the outcome of an election, and that is true to this day.

"God, damn it, are you fucking with me!?" I did say that, I didn't explain it because it was quite obviously true.

You most certainly did not say that.

Let me refresh your memory:

"That all magistrates should be chosen out of the whole body of citizens, check, obviously..."

A whole world of difference from "Magistrates do come from our citizens...."

You most certainly did not say that.

Let me refresh your memory:



A whole world of difference from "Magistrates do come from our citizens...."

"That all magistrates should be chosen out of the whole body of citizens, check, obviously," and ""Magistrates do come from our citizens," mean the same damn thing. Should be is a phrase often used in defining legal matters - like forms of government - to imply that in the future they will be, so, in essence, they mean the same thing... and "whole body of citizens" refers to those within the democratic government in question, thus "our citizens" works as well... Are you messing with my head or something? If you're acting stupid on purpose with the intent of giving me a headache, you're doing a damn good job.

Name me a Democratic Nation that isn't a Republic?

Name me a Democratic Nation that isn't a Republic?

By the main definition on dictionary.com, that's impossible. But, by that same loose, inaccurate definition, almost every country today is a republic.

We're talking about the U.S. today, buddy.



All U.S. citizens can vote that have not given up their rights as U.S. citizens.



There is nothing in the modern definitions of democracies that says you can't lose your right to vote.



The rich people are out to get you, trust me! Because we all know they're allowed to bribe people, and we all know that a rich guy having his comrades give a speech on something is going to change that many people's minds.



Whittier's right, here. The Democrats and Republicans are the same. So vote Republican, it doesn't matter, anyway.



"But... but... corporations... and global warming..."



Hey! That sounds like that really awful movie, The Stepford Wives.


I like Bush, but he doesn't even come close. He doesn't love you either, Whittier.



Good thing those homeless people on the Supreme Court keep upholding it... wait, those guys and girls are pretty rich, too. Why would they want to protect us, I thought this was some big conspiracy.



You're right, all definitions and logic aside, the U.S. is not a democracy.



Arrrrrglegarglegargle... raaah. :mad:


What is this guy smoking, seriously? I know some kids that might want some. :headbang:


1. I submit that the US's form of government has not really changed much. It remains an oligarchic republic. The only difference being that anyone who is a citizen (who is not convicted of any crimes), is eligible to vote as long as they are registered. Once in awhile, the most popular person will get an office. But once in Washington or Sacramento or Phoenix, the people's candidates will always become beholden to the extremists and the multinational corporations and the rich elite. As they say, power corrupts and no one is immune. I've seen newbies campaign on one thing and then vote the exact opposite once they got elected. (Not that that is always bad mind you.)

2. When you committ a felony, you are defacto giving up your own rights by violating the rights of others. This includes the right to vote. Give up or have taken away. The effect is the same. It ends with you not being allowed to vote.

3. You're right on this one. Even in direct democracies, such as the one that governs the state of California, criminals are not allowed to vote.

4. Don't get me wrong. What the rich want is not always bad for the people. I am just pointing that there are cases in which the desires of the elite conflict with what is good for the people. Sometimes the two merge, sometimes they conflict. As for the rest of your sentence, see my comment above about the people who get elected by the people by telling them one thing but then vote the opposite as soon as they get to Congress. Again, not always a bad thing. One Congressman I know personally did this but it was because he found out that his position would not really work in the real world but would cause harm. The switchers I am criticizing are the one's who do so only because they think it will help them get more power and influence. Not because they actually believe in anything.

5. Actually what's the point of voting Republican or Democrat? I leaning more toward it being time to stir up the pot. How about some nonpartisans for a change?

6. lol. That's why the Dems environmental candidates have been accepting campaign contributions from people like Shell Oil Company and Reddy's Logging Company? Ironically though, in California, it was a supposed anti environment Republican governor who issued the executive orders banning all offshore oil drilling along California's coast. But he was still beholden to the corporations.

7. I don't see the connection. Enlighten me. I do see a something between the first sentence of the paragraph and the opening statement of War of the Worlds. But that's because I just saw it. A good adaptation of HG Wells' book.

8. We are both making subjective opinions on this point.

9. The Supremes job is to look out for what's in the best long term interest of the nation as a whole. What they think will prevent the US from collapsing. Though I am not sure I stated it right.

10. Good that we agree. ;)

11. I am referring to major difference. There are no major differences. Yes there are environmentalists in the Democratic Party. But the Republican Party has them too. Yes there some corrupt people in the Republican Party, but the Democractic Party has them too.

12. Just a dose of sober reality gained from personal experience on the political front in California.

"That all magistrates should be chosen out of the whole body of citizens, check, obviously," and ""Magistrates do come from our citizens," mean the same damn thing. Should be is a phrase often used in defining legal matters - like forms of government - to imply that in the future they will be, so, in essence, they mean the same thing... and "whole body of citizens" refers to those within the democratic government in question, thus "our citizens" works as well... Are you messing with my head or something? If you're acting stupid on purpose with the intent of giving me a headache, you're doing a damn good job.

Not messing with your head at all. You are party to a logical fallacy, but you are not even seeing it, I assume.

In order to illuminate:

Let me run off on a strange sidetrack for a second:

All cats are born as kittens.

Does it logically follow, then, that ALL kittens will become cats?

It had absolutely nothing to do with members of the electoral college being unfaithful, as you seem to be implying it did. They did their job, and Bush won.
Point taken, it didn't happen because they were unfaithful. But he still won because the electoral college picked him. Who cares how the people are spread out, more people wanted Gore than Bush, but he lost. So the people didn't really chose him.

For someone that places himself on a pedestal and acts as if he is above anyone that curses, you have an apparently minimal command of the English language:

I love people with a holier-than-thou attitude who, in reality, are completely ignorant.

Thus, to say that the people don't have any influence is simply fucking wrong, you daft dolt, and that's what you originally said.
Aldranin, personal attacks are not permitted on these forums. Knock off the flaming, NOW.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

Name me a Democratic Nation that isn't a Republic?
thanks Aldranin, anyone else?

from someone who thinks a Dmocracy cannot be a Republic?

When taken literally; a "Demarchy" would be rule by the people, "Democracy" is simply power through the people, invested from the people. So a Republic is one necessary form to even be a Democracy, but it is not a 'Demarchy' or rule directly by the people. Like how a Monarchy would be rule by one, a Monocracy would be power given over by one. et cetra.

As for the Britain part, absolutely correct. As for the China part, that's debatable. To include China as a Republic is questionable. That's like considering the USSR socialist, when in reality it wasn't, just because that's what it called itself. The dictionary.com definition you probably looked up is not entirely accurate - it's extremely loose.

Well the USSR was socialist, what else was it? And as it happens dictionary.com wasnt where I got the definition, I have always seen it as a country without a monarchy. Anyway, China is a republic, its the Peoples Republic of China lol. Dictatorships are not non-republics.

When taken literally; a "Demarchy" would be rule by the people, "Democracy" is simply power through the people, invested from the people. So a Republic is one necessary form to even be a Democracy, but it is not a 'Demarchy' or rule directly by the people. Like how a Monarchy would be rule by one, a Monocracy would be power given over by one. et cetra.

Though demarchy might be a word for it, the proper term would be Direct Democracy. Only one I've ever known, that was Ancient Athens sometime in the 6th and 5th centuries BC

I would say that although stricly speaking a republic is not a democracy in strict definition of the terms, modern republics are democratic, since thay are supposed to reflect the will of the people, and most are accountable to the people at the ballot box.

In my opinion republic is a type of reprasentative democracy, and a 'true' democracy is a direct democracy.

Try definition #1

de·moc·ra·cy Audio pronunciation of "democracy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

Try definition #1

de·moc·ra·cy Audio pronunciation of "democracy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
What about #4?

I said this before, i'll say it again.

A republic is not a democracy. It has democratic functions, that does not make it a democracy. Using the american republic as an example, it has dictatorial functions, such as the presidents veto powers, etc. This does not make it a dictatorship. It has members who appoint other members. Its not a meritocracy. We have laws that coincide with christian beliefs, we arent a theocracy. Democracy is rule of the people, period. A republic has people voting, being represented, but its not rule of the people. It has parts of a democracy, but it is not a democracy.

What about #4?

In the original post;

I don't think a republic is a form of democracy because, although the people elect the representatives, they don't actually govern the nation. But others say that it is because the people are involved.

So I was answering Caf. So, #1 does that. In the US #1-#4 apply.

I said this before, i'll say it again.

A republic is not a democracy.

According to the definition of Republic, it can be a democracy.

re·pub·lic Audio pronunciation of "republic" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-pblk)
n.

1.
1. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
2. A nation that has such a political order.
2.
1. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
2. A nation that has such a political order.

And acording to the definition of democracy, (see post 65) a republic can be a democracy. They are neither mutualy inclusive or exclusive.

According to the definition of Republic, it can be a democracy.

re·pub·lic Audio pronunciation of "republic" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-pblk)
n.

1.
1. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
2. A nation that has such a political order.
2.
1. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
2. A nation that has such a political order.

And acording to the definition of democracy, (see post 65) a republic can be a democracy. They are neither mutualy inclusive or exclusive.


You didnt even read my post, it seems like. A republic can have democratic functions. That does not make it a democracy. Read the roots: Rule of the people. A democracy is where the people are in total control, no ifs or buts. Anything else has democratic functions, but is not a democracy. Period.

A republic can take on the forms of an oligarchy or a democracy. It's not really either, and can have functions of both.

When taken literally; a "Demarchy" would be rule by the people, "Democracy" is simply power through the people, invested from the people. So a Republic is one necessary form to even be a Democracy, but it is not a 'Demarchy' or rule directly by the people. Like how a Monarchy would be rule by one, a Monocracy would be power given over by one. et cetra.

-Archy and -cracy are different roots that mean the same thing, they just come from different languages.

You didnt even read my post, it seems like. A republic can have democratic functions. That does not make it a democracy. Read the roots: Rule of the people. A democracy is where the people are in total control, no ifs or buts. Anything else has democratic functions, but is not a democracy. Period.

It would seem that almost every English dictionary at the moment, as well as the Central Intelligence Agency, disagrees with you. A democracy isn't direct by nature, as you seem to think. Most democracies aren't.

It would seem that almost every English dictionary at the moment, as well as the Central Intelligence Agency, disagrees with you. A democracy isn't direct by nature, as you seem to think. Most democracies aren't.

America has a problem thinking its democratic. If you think you are democratic, you are probably going to warp some definitions a bit to make it look like you are.

A dictionary is only relative, and almost always means what the majority mean it to mean, not what it actually is. Same thing with how dictionaries like to describe atheists.

We're talking about the U.S. today, buddy.


US today operated on the same governmental system it did ~200 years ago. No difference. We've never been a democracy. We've been a "Democratic" Republic (A Republic with partial democratic operations in it's representative head).


All U.S. citizens can vote that have not given up their rights as U.S. citizens.


Wrong. Voting is determined at state level. While people may not be disenfranchised; there is no requirement that "the people" vote directly for anything in particular. The people do not vote for president.

The people do not vote on legislation.

Most states deny felones the right to vote (yet they are still legally citizens).

You're simply wrong in your ascertion.

Is a republic a democracy?

Not necessarily. They're not mutually exclusive, but they're not the same either. Republic is a way to organize the government. Democracy is a way to designate the governants.

Piss, I've been bested. I should have thought of that. Good job, Dragons Bay. See, Tekania, the official definitions as of this century and as they are defined by this (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=English%20language) language.

The CIA does not define those terms.

Pure Democracy = Direct Democracy.... END OF DISCUSSION.

"Republic" does not equal "Democracy"... END OF DISCUSSION.

The US, and most western governments are Representative Republics/Democratic Republics.... Meshing the two concepts of Oligarchial Representative Rule (Republic) and democratic ideals of individual choice and influence of communal acts..... They are neither "pure" democracies, nor are they total Republics.

END OF DISCUSSION.

You and Dragon are wrong; because the ROOT IDEAS of what defines and constitutes a "Republic" and that of a "Democracy" disagree with both of you.

History and origination defines the terms and concepts; not you, not some retard who wrote a dictionary. The terms are defined by their origination.

PURE AND FUCKING SIMPLE.

China is a Republic, as much as most Western Democratic Republics. They are ruled by oligarchial representation..... Which is the only requirement of being a Republic. "Republic" and "Democracy" are seperate terms, with seperate definitions... They are not the same, except in the fantasy world were you, and equally pedantic fools like yourself; have redefined the terms away from their historic meanings..... Because you're too lazy to say "Democratic Republic" or "Representative Democracy"...

The US, UK, Canada, Australia, France etc. are Democratic Republics; they are neither "Pure" Republics, nor are they "Pure" Democracies.

Republic =/= Democracy
Democracy =/= Republic

One defines the process by which government operates; the other defines the construction of governmental form.

"Democracy" defines a process by which "the people" of the community make decisions regardant to the direction and laws of the community. "Pure" = "Direct" and they are "redundant" adjectives. Because "Democracy" without further discription automatically means it in its "pure" (aka direct) Form.

"Republic" defines a system by which rulership is invested in a non-inherited rulership, who governs the people on their behalf (nothing need be democratic; sic. Plato's "Philosopher King")

Let's look at this with respect to the United States. Equality of legal rights, check, obviously.

Correct...


The appointment of magistrates by lot, check

Nope, wrong, not all are choosen by lot....

The account*ability of all magistrates and officers, check, kind of, sometimes.

Kinda sometimes?


The refer*ence of all public matters to the decision of the community at large, check

Check? I'm sorry, that does not even come into play... All public matters are refferences to the decision of the community is a check? Maybe in a "few" States, but neither the majority, nor does the federal government operate via "refferendum" which is what you're talking about.

"AT LARGE" legally means, directly with/from the people, as a "Greater" power..... Which negates your position that it does not mention it as direct... If they had left direct as an option; they would have left out "at large".


Also a "magistrate" is not a law maker. They are legal enforcers. Legislator =/= Magistrate... Judges, justices, constables, etc. are magistrates; Mayors, Councilmen, Legislators, etc. are not...

Electors are not choosen by the people; they are choosen by the state. Some states do this through vote. And the governance of the Electors vote is determined by the state.

There is no direct federal oversight of the E.C. Provisions for individual electors own requirements vary by state.

Do all electors have to vote by party-line? No.

Do no electors have to vote by party-line? No.

Some state have what is known as "Honest Elector" laws. That is; when members of the E.C. are choosen by the legislature, via the popular vote in representation of the state; those electors must vote by their nominative party, or face prosecution by the state.

Some states very in E.C. representation. Some divide the electorial representation by popular vote representation. Others follow "winner takes all" and the majority winner of popular vote is given full E.C. representation for that state.

The Commonwealth of Virginia, for example, has both honest elector laws; and winner-takes-all operations. Who-ever wins (under state law) the popular consensus; gets their parties representation for the E.C.; and all representatives of the E.C. who are appointed by party-line of the winner of the state vote; must vote their party; or face prosecution by the Commonwealth. Not all states operate like this, some do, others don't.... The U.S. Federal Government is not a Union of "people" but of several states; who inturn represent the "people" of their states. It's a multi-tiered oligarchy; where democracy only takes a marginal role in operation (at local levels).

The United States is a Federated Republic of mini-'Democratic Republics'; in turn composed of varied forms of local governments (from purely democratic,Many New England local cities and townships); to Democratic Republics, many cities where the Mayor is appointed by the City Council, as opposed to being elected).

... Um... why is 'no' winning? Democracy is a broad term that includes a number of different forms of government. Republic is one of those forms, as is a 'direct democracy' which is what most of you seem to believe is the only form of democracy.

Nope, wrong, not all are choosen by lot....
Yes, they most definitely are. In America, at least.

Kinda sometimes?
Politicians are always going to do underhanded shit, and get away with most of it. It has always been that way. The U.S. meets that prerequisite no less than anyone else.

Check? I'm sorry, that does not even come into play... All public matters are refferences to the decision of the community is a check? Maybe in a "few" States, but neither the majority, nor does the federal government operate via "refferendum" which is what you're talking about.
You're damn right, check. All public matters are referred to the people, whether or not the people decide on it directly or at all.

"AT LARGE" legally means, directly with/from the people, as a "Greater" power..... Which negates your position that it does not mention it as direct... If they had left direct as an option; they would have left out "at large".
At large doesn't mean directly from the people. What the hell are you smoking? At large simply means exactly what it says, at large; where the whole of the country in question has a say... which they do... it never says this say must be represented directly. Stop making crap up, you were wrong.

Also a "magistrate" is not a law maker. They are legal enforcers. Legislator =/= Magistrate... Judges, justices, constables, etc. are magistrates; Mayors, Councilmen, Legislators, etc. are not...

I am quite aware of that? What's your point? We qualify as a democracy under that definition.

The CIA does not define those terms.

Pure Democracy = Direct Democracy.... END OF DISCUSSION.

We're not discussing Pure Democracies alone, which are specific types of democracies. As for the other types, you are wrong, by definition. END OF DISCUSSION.

"Republic" does not equal "Democracy"... END OF DISCUSSION.

Wrong, according to Herodotus and Aristotle. END OF DISCUSSION.

The US, and most western governments are Representative Republics/Democratic Republics.... Meshing the two concepts of Oligarchial Representative Rule (Republic) and democratic ideals of individual choice and influence of communal acts..... They are neither "pure" democracies, nor are they total Republics.

Again, the question wasn't, "Do pure democracies = republics?" Pure Democracies are the same thing as Direct Democracies, and are just one form of democracy.

There is no such thing as a pure democracy. The term democracy en

END OF DISCUSSION.

The entire English language disagrees with you, and therefore, in the eyes of anyone educated and English-speaking, you are wrong. END OF DISCUSSION.

You and Dragon are wrong; because the ROOT IDEAS of what defines and constitutes a "Republic" and that of a "Democracy" disagree with both of you.
You are wrong, because the ROOT IDEAS of what defines and constitutes a democracy allow for a nation to be both a republic and a democracy, which I proved. You were full of shit when you tried to say otherwise, you acted like you knew what you were talking about, I called you out, you lose.

History and origination defines the terms and concepts; not you, not some retard who wrote a dictionary. The terms are defined by their origination.

PURE AND FUCKING SIMPLE.

First of all, history does not define the term democracy, it defines the term democratia, as I thought I made clear. Secondly, democratia does allow for an indirect democratia. Thirdly, we're in this century, talking about how today's accepted definitions apply, not Aristotle's, whether or not he agrees with us.

PURE AND FUCKING SIMPLE.

China is a Republic, as much as most Western Democratic Republics. They are ruled by oligarchial representation..... Which is the only requirement of being a Republic. "Republic" and "Democracy" are seperate terms, with seperate definitions... They are not the same, except in the fantasy world were you, and equally pedantic fools like yourself; have redefined the terms away from their historic meanings..... Because you're too lazy to say "Democratic Republic" or "Representative Democracy"...

We're pedantic fools because we proved you to be an idiot both by the standards of today and by the standards of the ancient world?

The US, UK, Canada, Australia, France etc. are Democratic Republics; they are neither "Pure" Republics, nor are they "Pure" Democracies.
You're right, they're both.

[Republic =/= Democracy
Democracy =/= Republic

One defines the process by which government operates; the other defines the construction of governmental form.

"Democracy" defines a process by which "the people" of the community make decisions regardant to the direction and laws of the community. "Pure" = "Direct" and they are "redundant" adjectives. Because "Democracy" without further discription automatically means it in its "pure" (aka direct) Form.

For the last time, all the facts disagree with you.

["Republic" defines a system by which rulership is invested in a non-inherited rulership, who governs the people on their behalf (nothing need be democratic; sic. Plato's "Philosopher King")

Nope, nothing need be democratic, but it can be democratic, and in many cases, it is.

... Um... why is 'no' winning? Democracy is a broad term that includes a number of different forms of government. Republic is one of those forms, as is a 'direct democracy' which is what most of you seem to believe is the only form of democracy.

Easy: because most of the people that have voted are either uninformed or misinformed.

... Um... why is 'no' winning? Democracy is a broad term that includes a number of different forms of government. Republic is one of those forms, as is a 'direct democracy' which is what most of you seem to believe is the only form of democracy.

A "republic" is not a "form of" "democracy"; though a Republic can be democratic.

Republics need not be democratic. Republics can be autocratic.

Therefore Republic =/= Democracy. And the correct answer is "no".

A Republic CAN be a Democracy and an Democracy CAN be a Republic.

A "republic" is not a "form of" "democracy"; though a Republic can be democratic.

Republics need not be democratic. Republics can be autocratic.

Therefore Republic =/= Democracy. And the correct answer is "no".

The thing is, the question should have been "Can a republic = a democracy," because that is where this entire debate originated between Cafetopia and myself on another thread, which Tekania is apparently uninformed of, and the true question should have been is the United States republic a democracy, to which the answer is "yes," because that was the original subject. Cafetopia accidently rigged the question by phrasing it that way, and so the poll is coming out wierd.

The correct answer is, "It can be," but Cafetopia left that one off, so those that understand why it could be, and, most of the time, is, have to just go with yes.

it's a form of democracy, but we here in the US need to redo the whole election system (if you ask me anyway) we're a representative democracy

anyway, if we lived in a tiny country (a million people, or better yet less) we could be a direct democracy. which would probably be the coolest kind of democracy (and the fairest)

it's a form of democracy, but we here in the US need to redo the whole election system (if you ask me anyway) we're a representative democracy

anyway, if we lived in a tiny country (a million people, or better yet less) we could be a direct democracy. which would probably be the coolest kind of democracy (and the fairest)not really... I really don't wanna be there when an issue passes with 50.1% of the votes. God, I can see Florida 2000 all over again...

"Look at this slight indentation... that is where they really wanted to vote..."

not really... I really don't wanna be there when an issue passes with 50.1% of the votes. God, I can see Florida 2000 all over again...

"Look at this slight indentation... that is where they really wanted to vote..."

Definitely, and I don't want to be there when a president loses in every single region of the United States except for one, highly populated one, and it tips the scales.

We got into an argument in this thread (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=429431) over whether or not a republic is a form of democracy, I know it's just semantics but I was wondering what you thought.

I don't think a republic is a form of democracy because, although the people elect the representatives, they don't actually govern the nation. But others say that it is because the people are involved.
It can be, but it can be made undemocratic. It is not a direct democracy (this being where the people themselves take the decisions such as in ancient Athens), but a representative democracy, in which the people elect representatives to take thier decisions for them, as is necessary in any large nation.

It can be either way, a republic doesnt have to be a democracy as I have exemplified earlier. I noticed talk of how a republic must be a democracy according to Herodotus and Aristotle. How the hell should they know? They only ever knew one democracy and it was nothing like ours!

The thing is, the question should have been "Can a republic = a democracy," because that is where this entire debate originated between Cafetopia and myself on another thread, which Tekania is apparently uninformed of, and the true question should have been is the United States republic a democracy, to which the answer is "yes," because that was the original subject. Cafetopia accidently rigged the question by phrasing it that way, and so the poll is coming out wierd.

The correct answer is, "It can be," but Cafetopia left that one off, so those that understand why it could be, and, most of the time, is, have to just go with yes.

He asked the question, "Is a Republic a Democracy?" That's the question. It's not rigged... Except in your dillusional mind.

I could care less what the fuck you "want" the question to be. You either answer the question; or you do not.

Can is not "is".

A republic is not a democracy, because "Republican" form has absolutely nothing to do with Democractic form.

Unless all "Republics" == "Democracies" you must answer no. The "Two" concepts exist in different realms of operational goals and procedures. One is not ever the other. Though both can coexist in the same entity.

The United States is a "Constitutional Democratic Republic"; it is neither a pure Democracy; nor a Pure Republic. So answering it as either is false, because that which is not completely true; is a lie.

In a Republic representatives, autocrats, etc. wield supreme authority:

Do they in the United States? No, supreme authority is vested in the Constitution, from the people; to which representatives are given limited authorities by grant.

In a Democracy; majority rules:

Do they in the United States? No, authority is protected to the minority; as well, via authorotative supreme control by the "Social Contract" of the Constitution.

The United States of America is an entity defined by the Supreme Authority of a Social Contract which exists between the people and their representatives. All Democratic operations are limited by Republican oversight of the Contract; and all Republican operations are limited by Democratic principles in oversight.

If its exists in "purity" as anything; it exists as a Constitutional government (A government constrained in Social Contract); neither truly "Republican" nor truly "Democratic" in its overall operation.

He asked the question, "Is a Republic a Democracy?" That's the question. It's not rigged... Except in your dillusional mind.

I could care less what the fuck you "want" the question to be. You either answer the question; or you do not.

Can is not "is".

You are missing the entire point, you misinformed twit. He wrote the wrong question for what this debate is truly about - I was the one that started this whole debate with him. It has nothing to do with me being delusional*, it has to do with Cafetopia stupidly conveying the debate incorrectly, thus confusing people that jumped in half-way like you did. Almost always, a republic is a democracy; by definition, a republic can always be a democracy, and vice versa.

The United States is a "Constitutional Democratic Republic"; it is neither a pure Democracy; nor a Pure Republic. So answering it as either is false, because that which is not completely true; is a lie.

For one, it is not a lie, because the person would not intend to be lying... they would be misstating. Secondly, if something is both a republic and a democracy, as a Democratic Republic is, then calling it either is perfectly fine, which is the actual point that started this debate.

In a Republic representatives, autocrats, etc. wield supreme authority:
Wrong; the authority is not necessarily supreme.

In a Democracy; majority rules:

Do they in the United States? No, authority is protected to the minority; as well, via authorotative supreme control by the "Social Contract" of the Constitution.

Yes, it is true... the majority does rule. Just not the majority of individuals - instead, the majority of regions and districts and representatives rules. They are still majorities.

If its exists in "purity" as anything; it exists as a Constitutional government (A government constrained in Social Contract); neither truly "Republican" nor truly "Democratic" in its overall operation.

No one claimed the United States to exist purely as anything.

You are missing the entire point, you misinformed twit. He wrote the wrong question for what this debate is truly about - I was the one that started this whole debate with him. It has nothing to do with me being delusional*, it has to do with Cafetopia stupidly conveying the debate incorrectly, thus confusing people that jumped in half-way like you did. Almost always, a republic is a democracy; by definition, a republic can always be a democracy, and vice versa.

A REPUBLIC IS NOT ALWAYS A DEMOCRACY....

A REPUBLIC IS NOT ALWAYS A DEMOCRACY....

It doesn't matter how many cases it is..... It is not always... And it does not have to be.... A republic does not necessitate democracy, it does not matter how many cases where a republican form of government operates in a democratic manner. By "definition" a Republic is not always a Democracy...
As long as you do not have a hereditary monarch, and governmental operations are public; you have a Republic. The Government can be Democratic; it can be Autocratic, it can be ruled by elected representatives; it can be ruled by military power; it can be ruled by an appointed despot; it can be ruled by a council.... None of that fucking matters as to whether it is democratic; except in your fucking retarded dream world....

"Republic" has absolutely nothing to do with "Democracy".

Nothing in a "Republic" need be "democratic".

Get that through your thick skull.

Or do I need to parade out all the various non-democratic Republics in history? Including ones operating at present?

Your definition of republic is catagorally, and historically WRONG...

Though demarchy might be a word for it, the proper term would be Direct Democracy. Only one I've ever known, that was Ancient Athens sometime in the 6th and 5th centuries BC
California is a direct democracy.

You are missing the entire point, you misinformed twit. He wrote the wrong question for what this debate is truly about - I was the one that started this whole debate with him. It has nothing to do with me being delusional*, it has to do with Cafetopia stupidly conveying the debate incorrectly, thus confusing people that jumped in half-way like you did. Almost always, a republic is a democracy; by definition, a republic can always be a democracy, and vice versa.



Flaming again? Easier than debating, I guess...

The problem with your assertion here, is that you are not answering the question that was ASKED... and you are covering up that failing, by claiming that the question is 'wrong'.

Well, if you don't like the question, there is nothing to stop you starting your own thread, where you can shape the question to ask exactly what you want it to ask.... but, in THIS thread, you are off-topic, my friend.