# The US is a Republic more so than a Democracy



## BobF (Oct 25, 2014)

In reading posts this morning I noticed some that said the US was a Democracy.    True. but as I see it a bit short of the reality of the US.    Words from our pledge of allegiance are these.

"I *pledge allegiance* to the Flag of the *United States* of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

We are officially and publically noted to be a Republic, which also include being a Democracy.

http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html

[h=2]Is the United States a democracy?[/h]     The Pledge of Allegiance  includes the phrase: "and to the republic for which it stands." Is the  United States of America a republic? I always thought it was a  democracy? What's the difference between the two?


     The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy.  Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the  people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by  voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other  hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in  turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the  Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they  read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been  spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found  incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have  in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in  their deaths" (_Federalist_ No. 10).

By popular usage, however, the word "democracy" come to mean a  form of government in which the government derives its power from the  people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. In this  sense the United States might accurately be called a democracy. However,  there are examples of "pure democracy" at work in the United States  today that would probably trouble the Framers of the Constitution if  they were still alive to see them. Many states allow for policy  questions to be decided directly by the people by voting on ballot  initiatives or referendums. (Initiatives originate with, or are _initiated_ by, the people while referendums originate with, or are _referred_  to the people by, a state's legislative body.) That the Constitution  does not provide for national ballot initiatives or referendums is  indicative of the Framers' opposition to such mechanisms. They were not  confident that the people had the time, wisdom or level-headedness to  make complex decisions, such as those that are often presented on  ballots on election day.


(And more)

So I am still correct when I question the usage of  Democracy rather than saying Republic.   But it appears that in today's ways of stretching or twisting the English language, Democracy will get used.    I grew up many years ago and still retain the idea that we are a Republic first and a Democracy second.


----------



## Shirley (Oct 25, 2014)

If I understand it correctly, in a true democracy the majority rules; the minority be damned. In a republic, the majority can rule but the minority has a place at the table.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 25, 2014)

I like that definition Shirley.


----------



## SifuPhil (Oct 25, 2014)

Shirley said:


> If I understand it correctly, in a true democracy the majority rules; the minority be damned. In a republic, the majority can rule but the minority has a place at the table.



And what is it called when the minority have all the power through the support of the ruling class and the majority are ignored?


----------



## drifter (Oct 25, 2014)

The Republic needs a new party.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 25, 2014)

SifuPhil said:


> And what is it called when the minority have all the power through the support of the ruling class and the majority are ignored?



The filibuster.


----------



## hollydolly (Oct 25, 2014)

SifuPhil;152381[B said:
			
		

> ]And what is it called when the minority have all the power through the support of the ruling class and the majority are ignored[/B]?



The United Kingdom!!! :crying:


----------



## Debby (Oct 25, 2014)

SifuPhil said:


> And what is it called when the minority have all the power through the support of the ruling class and the majority are ignored?




Well I was going to say something, but I think I'll keep my mouth shut.  Safer that way.


----------



## BobF (Oct 25, 2014)

drifter said:


> The Republic needs a new party.



Why is that drifter.   We actually vote for people, not the parties.    We already have a dozen or more parties running candidates, it is just that the two biggest parties that are trying to keep any others from having anything to say.

Isn't our election split with about 30% voting Democrat, another 30% voting Republican, and the remainder being voted without premeditation and for independents and other parties as well?


----------



## drifter (Oct 25, 2014)

Go out on a limb, Debby's, say it.

I think we need a Social Democrat party


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 25, 2014)

drifter said:


> Go out on a limb, Debby's, say it.
> 
> I think we need a Social Democrat party




Democratic....  not Democrat.. that's the derogatory name given by republicans.    I am a Democratic Socialist.  

http://www.dsausa.org/


----------



## Debby (Oct 25, 2014)

Hmmm, sorry, I'm claiming the 'old lady' excuse of not being able to remember what I was thinking.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 25, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> The filibuster.



:lol: We have two weapons to use against the filibuster.
One is the gag and the other is the guillotine.
Both are democratic in that they are imposed by the majority party
but they are not as violent as they sound.


----------



## BobF (Oct 26, 2014)

Right now, as Obama is running things, we are barely a Democracy and certainly not a Republic as we should be.

Often Obama does not even run as a Democracy as he does not allow the concerns to be of a Congress topic and debated.   Obama just determines what kind of organization he would like to run his ideas and forms such a group to do so.   Not Democratic or Republican at all.   These groups now set up new rules and life controls to meet their specific needs, no debates, no Congress needed the way Obama carries on.   No debating budgets and needs, just gets certain things done HIS WAY and the rest of us get no say in how things are going.

Soon, his time will be up and then we  have a new election to find a new leader.    So far we have only one person standing tall for that call, Hillary Clinton.    And from some things she  has commented on I think she will be far better than Obama has ever shown so far.   Who will be the competing one for the opposing party is for now unknown.   I would hope they would be just as interesting as Hillary seems to be to return the US to a acting Republic once again.   Bill Clinton was actually able to keep our budget in control while President.   That is something that Obama has never ever attempted to do.    Many of operating ways and laws that Obama has created will have to be done away with so our economy can once again get moving along.    Right now our economy is struggling along and not doing well at all with Obama's changes.   One thing Obama could have attempted but never even discussed was to completely clean up our messed up tax system and made it fair for all, not just the wealthy business owners and political operators.

The only thing that Obama bothered to do was our health system.    It seems that many now have worse health care and for much more money.   I just got my reference to next years health insurance and without changing one thing we will be paying more.   It was already higher than my previous costs when my employer was paying for much of my health care premiums for me.   That ended when the Obama bunch decided to take over our health care.      My previous employer does send us a fixed amount to help us keep in insurance but it is not likely enough to car for our needs as before.   My previous employer does not match needs any more, just a cash reserve to help us keep insurance coverage that we can afford to buy.

What was needed over our previous program provided was a help for those low income folks that had no ability to get health care on their own.   Not a massive, heavy on operating expenses of thousands of new government folks to manage this operation, and costing so much that our national debt has now climbed to near $20 trillion since Obama came on with a debt of $10 trillion when Obama came on.   Bush has held the debt in the $70 trillion level till when Pelosi and Reed came on in his last two years and drove the debt up to $10 trillion.

Anybody elected after Obama is gone has a grand chance at helping the US just by allowing the medical system to be returned to the private industry and eliminating many of the government hand holds that cost us money and does nothing for improving medical services.   Still more that the government has not adapted to meet the full requirements of the medical take over.   Two years more of Obama and then we can start correcting many of the costly errors made.


----------



## Davey Jones (Oct 26, 2014)

[h=1]The US is a Republic more so than a Democracy[/h]Truthfully Bob, I couldn't tell the difference today.


----------



## Davey Jones (Oct 26, 2014)

drifter said:


> Go out on a limb, Debby's, say it.
> 
> I think we need a Social Democrat party



The way things are going in this country,Ill settle for an Independent Party.


----------



## BobF (Oct 26, 2014)

Davey Jones said:


> *The US is a Republic more so than a Democracy*
> 
> Truthfully Bob, I couldn't tell the difference today.



Not many can see the difference these days.    Our current government is run more like a royalty might want to run it.   "Do as I say."    "No time for Congress to study and debate things, just get them done my way."    All from our self anointed Emperor.   Obama seems like a nice person but how he is running the US is way wrong and not the way our government should be run.    He is really ignoring our Constitution way too often.

HIS popularity it going straight down but may not affect Democrats Party popularity too much in the next two elections.

Popularity for Obama was about: 
57% in his first election
52% in his second election
between 30% and 40% these days

Who knows where it might be by the time of the next election two years from now.


----------



## drifter (Oct 26, 2014)

Bobf, I have no particular beef with either party, but if I got ticked at one party, I could join forces with somebody and Gang up on the aggrieving party.


----------



## BobF (Oct 26, 2014)

Drifter, that is exactly how this government is supposed to work.   There were no parties described in our countries set up operations or the Constitution.   These current two parties have set themselves up as representing the US voters, but they don't really have that ability except in the voters eyes.   That is why the loyalties to any party will grow and wane as time goes on.   Today, both parties are smaller than in years past and the non committed group is larger.


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Oct 26, 2014)

By our Constitution, we the people of the U.S. are a Republic.  The power is with the people... or it was.  Our President is elected by the people, though "indirectly" elected.  We vote in our home States.  Each State has a specific number of electoral votes.  Those electoral votes are cast with the Electoral College and our President is elected.

We have checks and balances built in to our Government by the Constitution.  The Legislative Branch makes the laws of the Land.  The Judicial Branch confirms that the laws effected by the Legislative Branch are Constitutional.  The Executive Branch has certain responsibilities... appointments of the Cabinet and to the Courts, foreign affairs, etc.  The Judicial Branch also adjudicates as to whether actions of the Executive Branch are Constitutional.

Today's U.S. government has become extremely politicized.  The voice of the people has been silenced by the Judicial Branch with decisions such as Citizens United.  That decision gave significant power to large corporations and has allowed those with money to buy elections.  The Legislative Branch has been in total and complete gridlock.  One party will not act if they believe the opposing party might gain some recognition.  The Executive Branch has been required to act to keep government operating due to the gridlock within the Legislative Branch.

Emphasis is placed on the Office of the President, with some believing that the fault for all ills lies there and that a change in that office will cure those ills.  The issues today lie with mostly with the Legislative Branch.  If the Legislative Branch would work together for the good of the Nation, we would see better appointments to the Judicial Branch and more support for the Executive Branch.  Our elected legislators have become pawns of the monied due to the corruption resulting from the allowing of lobbying.  IOW, you can wine and dine a Congressman and "buy" his vote.  The is a politically corrupt as Third World nations.

Too many, today, sit in front of their televions and computer monitors believing everything they see said or written by those with similar political ilk.  We see election turnout in most communities in the 20 to 30% of registered voters.  Where are the other 70% who could offer their voice through their vote?  We see political parties working diligently to restrict voting by specific ethnic groups, the working class, and the poor.  Money supports those who promote legislation to allow the monied to elect and re-elect our legislators.

We can wring our hands and repeat what we hear from our favorite political pundit.  All the posting on the internet won't change one thing for the better.  What will make change is getting as many Americans as you can off their couches and into the voting booth.  

We can vote in... elect... better representatives and see our Legislative Branch slowly and deliberatly brought back to being the Voice of the People.  We... WE have to do it.  Won't happen any other way.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 26, 2014)

Grumpy Ol' Man said:


> By our Constitution, we the people of the U.S. are a Republic.  The power is with the people... or it was.  Our President is elected by the people, though "indirectly" elected.  We vote in our home States.  Each State has a specific number of electoral votes.  Those electoral votes are cast with the Electoral College and our President is elected.
> We have checks and balances built in to our Government by the Constitution.  The Legislative Branch makes the laws of the Land.  The Judicial Branch confirms that the laws effected by the Legislative Branch are Constitutional.  The Executive Branch has certain responsibilities... appointments of the Cabinet and to the Courts, foreign affairs, etc.  The Judicial Branch also adjudicates as to whether actions of the Executive Branch are Constitutional.
> Today's U.S. government has become extremely politicized.  The voice of the people has been silenced by the Judicial Branch with decisions such as Citizens United.  That decision gave significant power to large corporations and has allowed those with money to buy elections.  The Legislative Branch has been in total and complete gridlock.  One party will not act if they believe the opposing party might gain some recognition.  The Executive Branch has been required to act to keep government operating due to the gridlock within the Legislative Branch.
> Emphasis is placed on the Office of the President, with some believing that the fault for all ills lies there and that a change in that office will cure those ills.  The issues today lie with mostly with the Legislative Branch.  If the Legislative Branch would work together for the good of the Nation, we would see better appointments to the Judicial Branch and more support for the Executive Branch.  Our elected legislators have become pawns of the monied due to the corruption resulting from the allowing of lobbying.  IOW, you can wine and dine a Congressman and "buy" his vote.  The is a politically corrupt as Third World nations.
> ...



Very VERY well said!!!  We all have to vote... and this is being made harder in some States due to voter suppression laws... enacted specifically to keep people from voting... under the guise of preventing nonexistant voter fraud..


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 26, 2014)

A question or three from an outsider:

Each state has a number of seats in the House of reps. Since there weren't 50 states at the time the Constitution was drawn up this number must be flexible. How is it determined how many seats each state will have, and over time, how does this change with demographic change/population growth etc.?  Do you have local members as in the UK or do you just elect a certain number of people to represent the state, and are they a from a mixture of parties, or does one party carry the whole state?

Is it uniform for all states or does each state have it's own method of voting for House of Representative members?


----------



## BobF (Oct 26, 2014)

Warrigal, here are some quick thoughts.

First to the Representatives.

http://www.house.gov/

Elected to a two-year term, each representative serves the people of a  specific congressional district by introducing bills and serving on  committees, among other duties.

(The  actual number will depend on the population of each state and number of districts created.)

Now for the Senators.

We vote for the Senator or Representative as we really do not vote for a party.    Each name must be selected and voted on.

For the Senators we have three elections, one third each two year increment and each term lasts for 6 years.   Two Senators for each state.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 26, 2014)

Each state is divided into districts based on population.  Each district gets to elect it's representative to the House..  The elected representatives are either Republican or Democrat or Independent..   The total number of Representatives is fixed by law at 435.   The more populous states have a larger number of Representatives. Each representative is elected for a 2 year term, and then must run again for his seat.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 26, 2014)

Thanks Bobf and QuickSilver.

That's pretty close to our system, which in part, was modelled on yours.

 The difference is that we have maximum three year terms for MPs but it can be less if the government chooses to go early, and half senate elections are held every three years (fixed term). Six senators per state (plus two? per territory) who are decided by proportional representation across the whole state. Their term is six years like yours.

 One of the anomalies that arises is that when we have an election for the House of Reps, we also have a half senate one at the same time, but the senators-elect can't be sworn in for some months until the outgoing ones have finished their terms. It leads to some very interesting politics in the meantime. 

 What happens if a senator dies in office. How is he/she replaced?


----------



## BobF (Oct 26, 2014)

They are mummified and kept in their chairs.

I don't know the rules but somehow for Senators they have a substitute picked to finish the year or term, then there will be another election.

For Representatives they may just wait the few months till the next election.

Time for QuickSilver to step in with some facts more correct than my thinking.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 26, 2014)

:lofl: That's as good an explanation as any.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 26, 2014)

Dame Warrigal said:


> Thanks Bobf and QuickSilver.
> 
> That's pretty close to our system, which in part, was modelled on yours.
> 
> ...



While the Constitution does not mandate a method by which vacancies in the Senate are to be handled, vacancies can be filled almost immediately by the governor of the former senator's state. The laws of some states require the governor to call a special election to replace U.S. Senators. In states where replacements are appointed by the governor, the governor almost always appoints a member of his or her own political party. In some cases, the governor will appoint one of the state's current U.S. representatives in the House to fill the vacant Senate seat, thus creating a vacancy in the House. Vacancies in Congress also occur when a member runs for and is elected to some other political office before his or her term is over. 
Since Senate vacancies can be filled so quickly and each state has two senators, it is highly unlikely that a state would ever be without representation in the Senate.

Vacancies in the House, however, take far longer to fill. The Constitution requires that member of the House be replaced only by an election held in the congressional district of the former representative.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/blvacancies.htm


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 26, 2014)

Interesting read and again, somewhat similar to our rules.

The Australian Constitution did not include reference to political parties originally but it does now as a result of the turbulent time of the Whitlam Government (Gough Whitlam is the PM who recently died aged 98).

 For over seventy years the interpretation of the constitution section dealing with casual vacancies called for a replacement from the same party of the member who had died or otherwise left the senate. 

The state Governor declared a vacancy, the party offered up a selection of suitable candidates, the state government approved one of them and then the governor appointed him/her to fill the vacancy.

Then the conventions were abandoned in favour of political mischief and now the constitution has been changed to say that theappointment must be *from the same party that the departing senator was in at the time of the election*. 

Background to this change here: 



> When a Senate seat representing one of the six states becomes vacant, Section 15 of the Australian Constitution requires the parliament of the relevant state to choose a replacement. This is done in a joint sitting of the upper and lower houses (except for Queensland, which has a unicameral parliament). In the event that the state parliament is not in session, the Governor of the state (acting on the advice of the state's executive council) may appoint the replacement, but such an appointment lapses if it is not confirmed by a joint sitting within 14 days after the beginning of the next session of the state parliament.
> 
> Prior to 29 July 1977, it was an established convention, but not a constitutional requirement, that the state parliament choose (or the governor appoint) a replacement from the same political party as their predecessor. It had also been the practice for the relevant party to provide a list of suitable names to the state premier, and for the state parliament to make the choice. In 1975, both these conventions were breached - in the former case, twice.
> 
> ...



As the young ones say on Facebook, it's complicated.


----------



## metasegue (Oct 26, 2014)

*It has to be a democracy. After all, here I am sharing a page with BobF...whom I totally disagree with. This wouldn't happen in Mecca, Peking, or Moscow. We should celebrate our ability to do so.*


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 26, 2014)

That's freedom, metasegue, and it is something to cherish.


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Oct 27, 2014)

The Senators, here in the U.S. are limited to two per State.  The Representatives elected to the House, however, have numbers set dependant upon population of the States.  We currently have 235 Representatives from our 50 States.

Two issues have developed over the past few years.  One is the huge amount of money that is put into elections in one State from politicial forces outside the State.  The "Citizens United" Supreme Court decision has made this even worse.  We have candidates for offices paying $170,000/year seeing close to $1 billion... yes, with a "B"... spent on their election.  Most all Senatorial and Representative races today see well over $1 million spent on the campaigns.  A large chunk of that money comes from billionaires across the Country who seek to "buy" politicians so they can have favorable legislation passed or unfavorable legislation defeated.

The other issue is "gerrymandering".  State legislatures can change the boundries for the districts from which Representatives are elected.  Originally, the population of the districts was to be similar from district to district.  That is still the case, but the boundries are being moved, strategically, to favor one political party.  Areas that see large populations of an opposing party are broken up and split between districts that have overwhelming populations of the favored party.  Many of these gerrymandering efforts have been challenged in the court system.  Some have been reversed... some not.

Politics in America has become much more than residents going to a voting booth and casting their vote.  It has become a huge money game, with strategic manipulation of voters and their ability to access polls.  The voter is drowned in back to back television and radio ads, most of which are less than truthful.  There is no penalty for stating falsehoods in campaign ads.  And, there is no penalty for our media to be slanted towards one party or the other.  It's extremely difficult for the uninformed to make intelligent decisions.  

It's a constantly changing polticial environment in the U.S., significantly different than that envisioned by our forefathers... but so much better than anywhere else on this planet!!!!


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 27, 2014)

I learnt about the gerrymander in the 1960's and it was prevalent over here too, especially in Queensland.
It has been eliminated  because boundaries and redistributions are now the responsibility of the independent Australian Electoral office which also conducts all elections according to federal and state law. They conduct elections for local government as well. They manage the roll too.



> Politics in America has become much more than residents going to a voting booth and casting their vote.  It has become a huge money game, with strategic manipulation of voters and their ability to access polls.  The voter is drowned in back to back television and radio ads, most of which are less than truthful.  There is no penalty for stating falsehoods in campaign ads.  And, there is no penalty for our media to be slanted towards one party or the other.  It's extremely difficult for the uninformed to make intelligent decisions.


Much the same here too.


----------



## rkunsaw (Oct 27, 2014)

Well said Grumpy except I'm not so sure these days that we're better than anywhere else. We're certainly not as good as was originally intended.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 27, 2014)

> Politics in America has become much more than residents going to a voting booth and casting their vote. It has become a huge money game, with strategic manipulation of voters and their ability to access polls. The voter is drowned in back to back television and radio ads, most of which are less than truthful. There is no penalty for stating falsehoods in campaign ads. And, there is no penalty for our media to be slanted towards one party or the other. It's extremely difficult for the uninformed to make intelligent decisions.



First and foremost, we have the disasterous Citizen's United ruling thanks to the Conservative Roberts Court. It opened the floodgates for Big Money to be able to influence and in essence to BUY elections.. insuring their interests are met, not the average citizen.

However, we can also thank Ronald Reagan, who effectively eliminated the "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987 by a 4-0 vote by the FCC.  Congress tried to stop the ruling,  however, the legislation was vetoed by Reagan and the way was paved for cable news to (Fox news comes to mind) to broadcast partisan propaganda and falsehoods.


​
On this page
Word Browser



Share: Cite / link:
Fairness Doctrine The doctrine that imposes affirmative responsibilities on a broadcaster to provide coverage of issues of public importance that is adequate and fairly reflects differing viewpoints. In fulfilling its fairness doctrine obligations, a broadcaster must provide free time for the presentation of opposing views if a paid sponsor is unavailable and must initiate programming on public issues if no one else seeks to do so.


----------



## Debby (Oct 27, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> Very VERY well said!!!  We all have to vote... and this is being made harder in some States due to voter suppression laws... enacted specifically to keep people from voting... under the guise of preventing nonexistant voter fraud..




We have had exactly the same thing happen here in Canada and our government who enacted changes even got caught out in a lie that was supposed to prove their point, that the laws needed to be changed and they still had the audacity to continue ahead with the change.  As our government tends to be more interested in the corporations (specifically the oil industry) their interest was in making it hard for students(who tend to be more idealistic)  and the poor to vote.


----------

