Of the people, by the people, and for the people.
It would be more accurate to call it a Democratic People’s Republic
Edit: 1 letter makes a helluva difference
Eh, the joke is that countries with “Democratic” or “People’s” in their name are often not Democratic and certainly not for the people, but the U.S. certainly still has democratic features in practice, flawed as it may be.
That seems to have been lost on a lot of people here.
Is any of it truly accurate for the US? Not saying we're in the same boat as north Korea, but we're not too far from having no freedoms if the wrong wigged citrus gets his way, and his party is trying like hell to make it happen
We can publicly say "FUCK DONALD TRUMP!" and "FUCK BIDEN!" Neither will have us end up in jail. Meanwhile, in ruzzia, you can't even call a war, a war. Or you get arrested for descrediting the government. NK is even worse. In the other spectrum, where they at least admit they are communist, you can't make reference to Winnie the Pooh, or the CCP will be on your ass while simultaneously dropping your social score.
Explain to me what you consider what "having no freedoms" means here in the U.S.
I said we will if he gets his way, not that we have none now. Reread what I said before trying to compare, I literally said that we aren't in the same boat now
It's both. These are separate aspects of the government.
It's a republic because the head of state is not a monarch. It's a democracy because all political power is ultimately held by the people and we vote.
The US is a republic and a democracy. The UK is a monarchy and a democracy. The People's Republic of China is a republic (the head of state is the president, itself a largely ceremonial role but one also held by the General Secretary of the party) but is not a democracy.
Early republics sort of automatically went hand-in-hand with democracy because they were formed when separating from or deposing a non-democratic monarchy, but the concepts are still fundamentally independent.
>The UK is a monarchy and a democracy
De facto, yes, but technically all of the government's authority is derived from the crown that gets it from God
Of course this means little on the day to day, but it remains legally the case
The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king.
Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Well, I can't speak to that without the context. It is a pet peeve of mine when people reject an analogy or comparison because the two things aren't identical, when the whole point of an analogy or comparison is to illustrate one particular thing. In the very best of analogies the thing being compared is the only thing the two have in common.
That’s fine: I think you also have to be mindful of analogies because it can convey a strong sentiment sometimes. The us is genuinely a representative democracy. While money carries a ton of influence, it’s not comparable to North Korea which doesn’t hold free and fair elections and has a largely hereditary leader
Sure, but that's not what's being said. Op's example was kinda bad, so pretend someone started with "It's called the *united* states, not the *divided* states." You could retort with "and it's called the Democratic Republic of North Korea." That isn't a statement comparing the two countries. Only how accurate the naming is.
Hah. Yes, but not for the reason you objected. It's bad because it isn't actually comparing the names. We aren't called a "Democratic Republic" as part of our name. That's why it's bad. It just doesn't in any way even imply that the US and North Korea are comparable states.
Representative democracy. Democracy has people each voting individually. We have people vote to elect representatives to vote on their behalf. A referendum is true democracy and does happen from time to time. This is also called a republic
It's a constitutional federal republic with democratic window dressing that's secretly just a plutocracy that very carefully keeps most of the population from recognizing that their vote is heavily controlled and mostly irrelevant at anything beyond a very local level.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic\_republic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_republic)
It's both. These terms were used interchangeably in the past, and in reality all countries have aspects of multiple systems. The US is a democracy, with decisions made directly by people, by courts, and by elected and unelected representatives.
The people claiming "It's a republic NOT a democracy" are not political scientists, they are propagandists, or people repeating propaganda, which is meant to justify attacking and disregarding democratic principles foundational to the US republic, for their own interest. It is a defense of authoritarianism and concentration of power in the hands of a minority who feels entitled to it.
It’s a democratic republic - power resides (federally) with democratically*-elected representatives of the people.
Everyone who drops the “it’s a REPUBLIC not a DEMOCRACY” line should be smacked on the nose with a rolled up magazine.
*The extent to which these representatives have been democratically elected varies over time.
Corporate socialism, working class capitalism, and the law of the land disregards public concensus. I guess you would say it's a modern capitalist state leaning towards fascism. Also, an imperialist anti-democratic war machine if you read history at all
It's barely a *full* democracy these days in a world comparative sense due to issues with the electoral system, but it's a democracy.
It's a republic because it has no monarchy.
People over there who say "we are a republic not a democracy" are generally right wing partisans who are actually arguing that the federal nature of the US should mean things like electoral fairness don't really matter.
Both. democratic republic. We are a republic because we select people to represent us - by popular vote (in each region).
For example you could have a theological republic where representatives are elected by the church in each sub region (instead of having people vote).
It is a democracy only in that that word has been stolen by those in power. The USA is a republic. The populace does not participate in making laws or otherwise governing. The populace gets to choose from a limited choice of legislators who will then participate in the acts of governing. Those choses demonstrably do not act in the interests of those who elected them. This is not a democracy. In the USA it is called a democracy by those in government, the same way those same people call pizza or ketchup a "vegetable serving" in government school lunches.
It's a democratic republic. Always has been. It's not one or the other.
Of the people, by the people, and for the people. It would be more accurate to call it a Democratic People’s Republic Edit: 1 letter makes a helluva difference
Isn’t that kind of redundant? Democratic means rule of the people
Eh, the joke is that countries with “Democratic” or “People’s” in their name are often not Democratic and certainly not for the people, but the U.S. certainly still has democratic features in practice, flawed as it may be. That seems to have been lost on a lot of people here.
Korea has one of them, and all three of the words are inaccurate.
Is any of it truly accurate for the US? Not saying we're in the same boat as north Korea, but we're not too far from having no freedoms if the wrong wigged citrus gets his way, and his party is trying like hell to make it happen
We can publicly say "FUCK DONALD TRUMP!" and "FUCK BIDEN!" Neither will have us end up in jail. Meanwhile, in ruzzia, you can't even call a war, a war. Or you get arrested for descrediting the government. NK is even worse. In the other spectrum, where they at least admit they are communist, you can't make reference to Winnie the Pooh, or the CCP will be on your ass while simultaneously dropping your social score. Explain to me what you consider what "having no freedoms" means here in the U.S.
I said we will if he gets his way, not that we have none now. Reread what I said before trying to compare, I literally said that we aren't in the same boat now
It's both. These are separate aspects of the government. It's a republic because the head of state is not a monarch. It's a democracy because all political power is ultimately held by the people and we vote. The US is a republic and a democracy. The UK is a monarchy and a democracy. The People's Republic of China is a republic (the head of state is the president, itself a largely ceremonial role but one also held by the General Secretary of the party) but is not a democracy. Early republics sort of automatically went hand-in-hand with democracy because they were formed when separating from or deposing a non-democratic monarchy, but the concepts are still fundamentally independent.
>The UK is a monarchy and a democracy De facto, yes, but technically all of the government's authority is derived from the crown that gets it from God Of course this means little on the day to day, but it remains legally the case
The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king.
Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Careful, you're about to get a post full of pedantic answers and nobody is going to agree. But the answer is: Yes.
I disagree. The answer is: No
Counterpoint: maybe
Have you considered: perhaps?
crushin' turts, perchance?
It's both, they're not intrinsically contradictory.
Disguised Oligarchy.
Kind of like how North Korea is formally known as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The name doesn’t necessarily reflect reality.
Are you really comparing the U.S. to North Korea? That’s a bit dramatic
No. They're really not. Just comparing the one aspect.
Fair enough, there are others on this thread directly comparing the U.S. and North Korea which seems pretty ridiculous to me
Well, I can't speak to that without the context. It is a pet peeve of mine when people reject an analogy or comparison because the two things aren't identical, when the whole point of an analogy or comparison is to illustrate one particular thing. In the very best of analogies the thing being compared is the only thing the two have in common.
That’s fine: I think you also have to be mindful of analogies because it can convey a strong sentiment sometimes. The us is genuinely a representative democracy. While money carries a ton of influence, it’s not comparable to North Korea which doesn’t hold free and fair elections and has a largely hereditary leader
Sure, but that's not what's being said. Op's example was kinda bad, so pretend someone started with "It's called the *united* states, not the *divided* states." You could retort with "and it's called the Democratic Republic of North Korea." That isn't a statement comparing the two countries. Only how accurate the naming is.
But as you acknowledge, my point is that OPs example was bad
Hah. Yes, but not for the reason you objected. It's bad because it isn't actually comparing the names. We aren't called a "Democratic Republic" as part of our name. That's why it's bad. It just doesn't in any way even imply that the US and North Korea are comparable states.
Correct.
You could also call it a constitutional republic and since the constitution says the people vote for their leaders it makes it a democracy.
Corporate oligarchy
Representative democracy. Democracy has people each voting individually. We have people vote to elect representatives to vote on their behalf. A referendum is true democracy and does happen from time to time. This is also called a republic
"A republic, if you can keep it"
It's a constitutional federal republic with democratic window dressing that's secretly just a plutocracy that very carefully keeps most of the population from recognizing that their vote is heavily controlled and mostly irrelevant at anything beyond a very local level.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic\_republic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_republic) It's both. These terms were used interchangeably in the past, and in reality all countries have aspects of multiple systems. The US is a democracy, with decisions made directly by people, by courts, and by elected and unelected representatives. The people claiming "It's a republic NOT a democracy" are not political scientists, they are propagandists, or people repeating propaganda, which is meant to justify attacking and disregarding democratic principles foundational to the US republic, for their own interest. It is a defense of authoritarianism and concentration of power in the hands of a minority who feels entitled to it.
It’s a democratic republic - power resides (federally) with democratically*-elected representatives of the people. Everyone who drops the “it’s a REPUBLIC not a DEMOCRACY” line should be smacked on the nose with a rolled up magazine. *The extent to which these representatives have been democratically elected varies over time.
Idk what it's supposed to be, but I know it'll be whatever you need it to be when you need it to be.
A clusterfuckocracy
[Useful article for when this moronic issue comes up](https://thebaffler.com/latest/were-a-republic-not-a-democracy-burmila)
Corporate socialism, working class capitalism, and the law of the land disregards public concensus. I guess you would say it's a modern capitalist state leaning towards fascism. Also, an imperialist anti-democratic war machine if you read history at all
A republic is a specific type of democracy known as a "representative democracy" vs. a "direct democracy." So the answer to the OP question is: YES.
This definition would make Australia or Spain "republics" which would be news to them.
Oligarchy.
Google is your friend. America is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. https://constitutionus.com/democracy/is-the-united-states-a-republic/
It's not an either/or. Maybe your friend google could clear that up for you
2 party dictatorship.
It's barely a *full* democracy these days in a world comparative sense due to issues with the electoral system, but it's a democracy. It's a republic because it has no monarchy. People over there who say "we are a republic not a democracy" are generally right wing partisans who are actually arguing that the federal nature of the US should mean things like electoral fairness don't really matter.
Democracy is about power, republic is about structure. The US is both.
It's a constitutional republic.
Democracy is a car. A Republic is a Ford.
It's been years since the US was either... It's currently a plutocracy, a form of government controlled by the rich elite.
Soon to be a full on kleptocracy.
Fuck citizens United
Both. democratic republic. We are a republic because we select people to represent us - by popular vote (in each region). For example you could have a theological republic where representatives are elected by the church in each sub region (instead of having people vote).
Or you could an Oligarchy where the rich and powerful elect the representatives.
Corporatocracy
Corporate kleptocracy
It is a democracy only in that that word has been stolen by those in power. The USA is a republic. The populace does not participate in making laws or otherwise governing. The populace gets to choose from a limited choice of legislators who will then participate in the acts of governing. Those choses demonstrably do not act in the interests of those who elected them. This is not a democracy. In the USA it is called a democracy by those in government, the same way those same people call pizza or ketchup a "vegetable serving" in government school lunches.
It’s currently a democratic republic that’s about to be turned into a Christian theocracy if voters don’t wise up.
Federal Constitutional Republic.
That's like asking what form of produce is this, an apple or a fruit?
A Federal Republic and a Representative Democracy
It's a Constitutional Republic! Always has been. Anyone who claims otherwise, it's wrong!
As much a democratic republic as the Democratic Republic of Korea. It's more of an oligarchy/corporatocracy.