trb@drutx.UUCP (BuckleyTR) (03/06/85)
>> ... Besides the >> fact that the United States is NOT a democracy (It's a Republic) >> ... > I've seen this statement on the net before. In fact, the United States > is a democratic republic, a place where we elect our representatives > (the distinctive trait of a republic) in popular elections (the distinctive > trait of a democracy). > > John Wallner > bmcg!john John, the important difference between a republic and democracy as far as this country goes is that a republic is a rule of LAW, whereby democracy is a rule of people, who could arbitrarily change the law at whim or in the heat of passion. In the really far out sense democracy is nothing but mob rule. Fortunately, this country still maintains some sembelance of being a republic, and at least the Bill of Rights in the Constitution hasn't been changed. One can argue the petty differences in representative democratic processes vs. direct participation, etc., but I believe it very important that we realize that our country is supposed to be ruled by law, the Constitution, and not the whims of the masses. Especially with TV around that can make or break an opinion overnight. That's why there are so many groups out there with slogans like "This is a Republic, not a Democracy. Let's keep it that way!" Tom Buckley AT&T Information Systems ihnp4!drutx!trb (303) 538-3442
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (03/08/85)
>John, the important difference between a republic and democracy as >far as this country goes is that a republic is a rule of LAW, whereby >democracy is a rule of people, who could arbitrarily change the law >at whim or in the heat of passion. In the really far out sense >democracy is nothing but mob rule. > >Fortunately, this country still maintains some sembelance of >being a republic, and at least the Bill of Rights in the Constitution >hasn't been changed. > >One can argue the petty differences in representative democratic >processes vs. direct participation, etc., but I believe it >very important that we realize that our country is supposed to >be ruled by law, the Constitution, and not the whims of >the masses. Especially with TV around that can make or break >an opinion overnight. That's why there are so many groups out >there with slogans like "This is a Republic, not a Democracy. >Let's keep it that way!" > >Tom Buckley Apart from a few years about 330 years ago, England has never been a republic, but it boasts of being the home of the rule of LAW. Law is stronger than the King, stronger than any person. England has also never had a written constitution, so the constitution cannot be changed easily. You can't imagine an effort to bring in an English constitutional amendment for a balanced budget, for example. There are pluses and minuses in this approach. The framers of the US Consitution tried to arrange something similar to the way the English consitution seemed to be at the time -- a reasonably balanced set of powers among the King (President), Parliament (Congress) and the Courts. Now, in England and the rest of the British Commonwealth, the King (Queen) has lost almost all power to Parliament, whereas in the US the King (President) has gained power relative to Parliament (Congress). Why do you relate the rule of law to being a republic? Which system is currently more democratic, monarchy or republic? Which is more law-abiding? Which is more litigious (using the law for personal advantage)? If you want more examples of democratic monarchies, look at Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden. I don't know which have written constitutions, but all of them are pretty democratically run, and governed by law. For a good example of an autocratic republic, look at France. The President's whim counts for more even than it does in the US. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (03/08/85)
> > In fact, the United States > > is a democratic republic, a place where we elect our representatives > > (the distinctive trait of a republic) in popular elections (the distinctive > > trait of a democracy). > > > > John Wallner > > bmcg!john People could be pretty easily conned if everytime they saw a distinctive trait they identified it as the real thing. Seems to me that were the United States really a representative democracy, the verdict decided by the popular election would be an unbiased representation of the eligible voting population. Then representatives would be representative. If a democracy doesn't have to be representative, then what is democracy for in the first place? Of course, we all know that in the U.S., huge percentages of the voting population don't vote. Hence the final verdict is heavily biased against the sides favored by the non-voting population. Hence the so-called democracy is not representative. The only way to guarantee a truly representative democracy is to guarantee that practically all eligible voters vote, by voluntary or involuntary means. A biased representative democracy has the distinctive traits and little more. I lean to the republic side of this question. Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw