Is the USA a democracy?

[TPIG]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Germany is both a parliamentary democracy and a federal republic.

The full name of the German Constitution is "Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland." The constitution stems from the republican form of government in Germany. Democratic systems and republican systems are not incompatible, it's just that with democracies, constitutions are not a requirement, whereas with republics, they are.

[Karpatsky]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Germany is both a parliamentary democracy and a federal republic.

The full name of the German Constitution is "Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland." The constitution stems from the republican form of government in Germany. Democratic systems and republican systems are not incompatible, it's just that with democracies, constitutions are not a requirement, whereas with republics, they are.

A regime doesn't necessarily need a constitution to be considered a republic, it's just a trend.

[Helsinkian]

False. A Republic, by its nature, is guided by a constitution, such as ours which protects the rights of individuals and minorities.

By that definition, Denmark and Norway, both monarchies, would be republics.

Democracies have no such constitutional requirement, allowing them to trample on the rights of individuals and become tyrannical.

Which countries do you have in mind?

[TPIG]

False. A Republic, by its nature, is guided by a constitution, such as ours which protects the rights of individuals and minorities.

By that definition, Denmark and Norway, both monarchies, would be republics.

Democracies have no such constitutional requirement, allowing them to trample on the rights of individuals and become tyrannical.

Which countries do you have in mind?

Gosh, people really seem to be misunderstanding my point. Republics are not the only form of government that allow for constitutions, but they are one of the only forms that, by definition, require one.

[Karpatsky]

False. A Republic, by its nature, is guided by a constitution, such as ours which protects the rights of individuals and minorities.

By that definition, Denmark and Norway, both monarchies, would be republics.

Democracies have no such constitutional requirement, allowing them to trample on the rights of individuals and become tyrannical.

Which countries do you have in mind?

Gosh, people really seem to be misunderstanding my point. Republics are not the only form of government that allow for constitutions, but they are one of the only forms that, by definition, require one.

Again, where do you get that impression from? In its strictest definition, a republic is just a government by popular election.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1006410195830837248

False. A Republic, by its nature, is guided by a constitution, such as ours which protects the rights of individuals and minorities. Democracies have no such constitutional requirement, allowing them to trample on the rights of individuals and become tyrannical.

That is a ridiculously... stubborn(?) distinction that fundamentally ignores many aspects of what experts call democracy, and many examples of modern-day democracies.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1006410195830837248

False. A Republic, by its nature, is guided by a constitution, such as ours which protects the rights of individuals and minorities. Democracies have no such constitutional requirement, allowing them to trample on the rights of individuals and become tyrannical.

That is a ridiculously... stubborn(?) distinction that fundamentally ignores many aspects of what experts call democracy, and many examples of modern-day democracies.

[TPIG]

False. A Republic, by its nature, is guided by a constitution, such as ours which protects the rights of individuals and minorities.

By that definition, Denmark and Norway, both monarchies, would be republics.

Democracies have no such constitutional requirement, allowing them to trample on the rights of individuals and become tyrannical.

Which countries do you have in mind?

Gosh, people really seem to be misunderstanding my point. Republics are not the only form of government that allow for constitutions, but they are one of the only forms that, by definition, require one.

Again, where do you get that impression from? In its strictest definition, a republic is just a government by popular election.

 Modern political thought identifies one of the main differences between a democracy and a republic as fundamental (constitutional) protections for individual rights, which is part of the operating definition of a Republic, but not a democracy, where majority-rule comes first.

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic

[Helsinkian]

Modern political thought identifies one of the main differences between a democracy and a republic as fundamental (constitutional) protections for individual rights, which is part of the operating definition of a Republic, but not a democracy, where majority-rule comes first.

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic

I'm still waiting for modern-day examples of such democracies.

[TPIG]

There are hardly any examples because many countries recognize the importance of enshrining rights within a constitution. However, we can see examples of this with things like ballot initiatives that limit rights - I'm sure you'd consider Prop 8 in California to be an example of democracy that harms personal liberty. If America didn't have a constitution that superseded the Federal Government and which didn't enshrine individual rights, things like slavery and Jim Crow would have lasted longer in the South, as majority would have been in favor of them.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

o wow so youre saying were a liberal democracy with constitutional protections for individual liberties huh

and that the definition of democracy is different than when plato was alive

weird

[Associate Justice PiT]

     While I do think there is merit to the conservative republic-democracy distinction, it gets invoked in many instances where the word "democracy" clearly was not being used in that sense and the statement that "we are a republic, not a democracy" therefore becomes a non sequitur.

     Something similar happens with the word "racism", where you can always count on a leftist to exclaim that "minorities can't be racist" when you use the term in its colloquial sense, as if their statement has any relevance. As it happens, ideologues seem to have a hard time understanding that words can have multiple definitions.

[Dr. MB]

https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1006410195830837248

False. A Republic, by its nature, is guided by a constitution, such as ours which protects the rights of individuals and minorities. Democracies have no such constitutional requirement, allowing them to trample on the rights of individuals and become tyrannical.

Definition of "democracy":

"A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."

Definition of "republic":

"a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch."

They seem fairly similar: because they are. The confusion is between direct democracy (the type of democracy you're referring to) and representative democracy (in fact, nearly all "republics" today use this form).

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1006410195830837248

False. A Republic, by its nature, is guided by a constitution, such as ours which protects the rights of individuals and minorities. Democracies have no such constitutional requirement, allowing them to trample on the rights of individuals and become tyrannical.

Definition of "democracy":

"A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."

Definition of "republic":

"a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch."

They seem fairly similar: because they are. The confusion is between direct democracy (the type of democracy you're referring to) and representative democracy (in fact, nearly all "republics" today use this form).

Good argumentation. The United Kingdom, for instance, is both a democracy and a monarchy. (If parliamentary or constitutional is still controversial among historians and experts in constitutional law).

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

No because Senate malapportionment and Gerrymandering.

[Hope For A New Era]

Yes, until at least January 19, 2025.

[Benjamin Frank]

"The U.S is a republic and not a democracy" is one of those things that ignorant people, especially on the right, say when they want to sound profound.

If you challenge them on it, they'll admit that the United States is a democratic republic, which is no different than a democracy, but not a direct democracy. 

That's fine and all to point that out, but is any American already not aware that the United States is not a direct democracy?

[Samof94]

This website couldn’t exist in China.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1006410195830837248

It's not technically true at all. Being a republic and a democracy are not mutually exclusive

Depends on how narrow you define "democracy".

[ꙮ]

The thing that bothers me most about the "Acktchually the United States isn't a democracy, it's a republic" argument is that it almost always seems to be brought up in cases where it wouldn't even apply. Like when Democrats complain about the Electoral College, Senate, or gerrymandering for example. The existence of the Senate and EC doesn't have much to do with the US being a "republic" or "democracy", but has to do with the US being a federal state and not a unitary one. You can have unitary or federal democracies or republics.

[Donerail]

The USA should be thought of as a "fledgling democracy," given that a large portion of the country only democratized in the 1960s. If you compare us to other early-stage democracies, we score pretty well.

[Beet]

There is the formalistic definition of a democracy as a system of government with electoral government. In that sense, the US is a democracy.

Then there is the informal definition that most people think of, which is the more amorphous concept of "rule by the people." In the latter sense, America is arguably not a democracy and was not designed to be one, and the Republicans are right when they point this out.

[Figueira]

In a broad sense, yes. You can make a case for it not being a great democracy because of gerrymandering, the Senate, the electoral college, etc. But the point conservatives claim to be making when they say it's not a democracy is that it isn't a direct democracy. That's just not what democracy means. The real point they're making is that they're trying to deflect when people rightly accuse them of being anti-democratic.

[Figueira]

Err... you are a German. Your country also uses an electoral college to elect your President.

Apples and oranges. The President of Germany is not as important a position as the President of the United States.

[Former President tack50]

The US constitution doesn't really guarantee that the US are a democracy; or at least it really didn't until the 1870s, after the 14th amendment was passed.

However the USA as of now, as flawed as they can be in some aspects, are 100% a democracy.