Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Thats like saying a socialist is a fascist, simply because they are authoritarian.
Our Founders seemed to have noted the difference. Why dont you?
Ok, you can stick with that if you want.It is more like saying "that is a sedan not an automobile".
Our founders were well educated enough to know there are multiple forms of democracy.
The word democracy has both a generic meaning and a specific one.
This is pretty basic middle school stuff, how is it that none of you know this?
Ok, you can stick with that if you want.
The differences are too big for me to mistakenly call America a "democracy"
Yes, and constitutional republic and democracy have 2 different meanings. Thanks for the helpWords have meanings, you are free to ignore them if it makes you feel better.
For all of the cold war the US talked about defending democracy around the world.
When we invaded places like Iraq we talked about "exporting democracy".
Nobody ever had an issue with it, because people understood that they were not talking about the pure form of Democracy, but of the form we have in this country.
But now, like everything else in our country this has become a victim of hyper-partisanship
Yes, and constitutional republic and democracy have 2 different meanings. Thanks for the help
A form with very specific limits and important differences.,which is a form of democracy
A form with very specific limits and important differences.,
Enough to make it different enough that they are not equivalentYes, very specific limits and important differences between it and a Pure Democracy.
Can anyone say this does not describe our country....a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
Yes. Enough differences that they shouldnt be equated.Yes, very specific limits and important differences between it and a Pure Democracy.
Enough to make it different enough that they are not equivalent
Yes. Enough differences that they shouldnt be equated.
Only in the broadest sense because our government is not a simple majority rule entity.Can anyone say this does not describe our country....a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
It's a better system than Proportional Representation. The UK is split up into 650 constituencies, the constituents registered to vote in each constituency votes for their candidate. The one with the most votes becomes their representative, MP - Member of Parliment, in the House of Commons. The party with 326 or more elected MP's forms the government. If the parties fall short of that, the one with the most votes can form a government by going into Coalition with another party to get over the 326 threshold, just like in the past with the Tories and Lib Dem, and then the Tories with the DUP.Problem is the UK and US have the SAME way of electing representatives. The UK's is slightly better because there's no gerrymandering.
However, the Lib Dems and Labour got like 900 votes less than the Tories, but ended up with 150 seats less. That ain't "full democracy".
The UK is a representative democracy. The only country that I can think of that's a direct democracy is Switzerland.The link is clearly neither comprehensive nor all-inclusive.
And the perils of direct democracy are significant, where citizens’ rights are subject to the will of the people, not the rule of law.
Only in the broadest sense because our government is not a simple majority rule entity.
The minority is protected as it should be from what amounts to tyranny of the mob.
A majority vote can never reinstate slavery, for instance.
That difference is enough not to equate a republic with a democracy.
In it's most basic form a democracy does not require any Constitution or a even a Judicial branch of the government because ALL matters of law would be decided by a simple majority vote
No it couldnt. Citizens dont amend the Constitution.But yes, a majority vote could reinstate slavery simply by amending the Constitution.
No it takes more than a simple majority to amend the Constitution. It takes a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress then only with a 3/4 Majority of the states acceptance does the amendment pass.Nowhere in the definition does it mention majority.
But yes, a majority vote could reinstate slavery simply by amending the Constitution.
No it takes more than a simple majority to amend the Constitution. It takes a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress then only with a 3/4 Majority of the states acceptance does the amendment pass.
The Brexit referendum had no legal standing/weight, because we're not a direct democracy. It was merely an exercise to show government the majority feelings of the voters, they didn't have to take the result and leave the UK, but the government did, it wanted to implement the will of the people, although it didn't have to.The Brexit debacle is another example of the perils of direct democracy – the idiocy of determining such an important issue via referendum.
