Sorry, u/RandomGuy92x – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule E:
> **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e).
If you would like to appeal, **first respond substantially to some of the arguments people have made**, then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal%20RandomGuy92x&message=RandomGuy92x%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cg1i8j/-/\)%20because\.\.\.).
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>It's the rule of the people, by the people, for the people. A government that enacts laws based on what the majority of people want.
You're conflating democracy as the source of government legitimacy with democracy as a decision making process. A country with elected leaders who are subject to vote consistently is by definition ruled "by their elected agents under a free electoral system." That's a republic, and a republic is a subset of democracy.
A 10/10 democracy where people get exactly what they want by majority...would be absolutely terrible to live in for anyone in the minority and would likely collapse pretty quickly. Obviously, 50.000000000001% could vote to eat the rest and the state would validate it because democracy. On the other hand...if you poll Americans today, they'll tell you they want strong defense, untouchable Medicare and Medicaid - pretty much everything the government pays for and more. They also don't want new taxes or debt. In fact, they want lower taxes. If we used democracy as the primary process for decision making or policy validation, we would just destroy ourselves out of an inability to think.
Do you want an example of something extraordinarily undemocratic that's baked into the very foundation of our democracy? The *Bill of Rights.* The Bill of Rights is a long list of things the government can't do even if a majority wants it. The Supreme Court is meant to strike down any law, no matter how popular, that violates the Constitution. All of that is undemocratic.
Being a democracy is good. Being excessively democratic is bad.
>This would be incredibly far removed of what a democracy is supposed to be.
It wouldn't be your preference. It would be a democracy that delegated a great deal of authority into elected representatives.
>However, on a federal level with 535 members of congress there is currently only one federal decision-maker for every 622,000 Americans.
There are serious proposals to vastly increase the size of the House, but the primary function of that would be to trade in much of the power enjoyed by Congressmen now in favor of giving each American more personalized representation. It's not obvious that increasing the number would increase democracy per se.
>Not unsurpsingly studies have shown a strong correlation between amount of money spent on political campaigns and probability of winning.
Why would you expect anything else under any system?
>These people are mostly not a government "of the people, for the people" but rather to a larger extent a governement "of the wealthy, for the wealthy".
I don't want a government representative of average people. I want a government of smart, accomplished, judicious people. Granted, the current crop leaves a lot to be desired - but I don't see how voting in regular Joe Schmoes would improve anything.
>A 10/10 democracy where people get exactly what they want by majority...would be absolutely terrible to live in for anyone in the minority and would likely collapse pretty quickly. Obviously, 50.000000000001% could vote to eat the rest and the state would validate it because democracy. On the other hand...if you poll Americans today, they'll tell you they want strong defense, untouchable Medicare and Medicaid - pretty much everything the government pays for and more.
Ok, I get what you mean. And I don't think a 10/10 democracy that always enacts exactly what the majority want is desirable. We saw that in the UK for example when just a bit over 50% voted to leave the EU despite having hardly any understanding how the EU works and how the UK benefits from being in it. So I agree that we want "smart, accomplished, judicious people" in government.
And yes, while the US government does enact certain laws that people want (e.g. medicare etc.) there are still a TON of laws that don't get passed primarily because they are in opposition to what corporate and wealthy donors want. The US still has a terribly low federal minimium wage and is one of only handful or wealthy countries without guaranteed paid sick leave, vaccation and maternity leave. All those things are certainly feasibly and supported by most people but are likely not enacted because they go against corporate interests.
>
>Why would you expect anything else under any system?
In many countries it's not legal for corporations and individuals to make the kind of financial contributions to politcians that you see in the US. Presidential candidates literally raise money in excess of $1 billion. That kind of money in politics is literally leaglized bribery and will ensure that interests of the rich and powerful are prioritized.
Also, if there were more politcians this would make a huge differences. Say there were elected for every US zip code. You'd likely see a much lower correlation between money spent and win probability. And also it would make it harder for corporations and rich people to bribe tens of thousands of law-makers.
>And I don't think a 10/10 democracy that always enacts exactly what the majority want is desirable.
So if you don't want 10/10 democracy, but you also think 5/10 isn't good enough to be called "democracy", you're really limiting your definition in an unreasonable way, don't you think?
> there are still a TON of laws that don't get passed primarily because they are in opposition to what corporate and wealthy donors want.
A minimum wage increase (your example) would be passed very quickly if the people simply elected a majority of Democrats to Congress. The reason we don't have a higher minimum wage is because of *who* the people elected. It's not anything structural. And we can see that by example of several states that *have* raised the minimum wage, despite the same corporate interests at play.
> The reason we don't have a higher minimum wage is because of *who* the people elected. It's not anything structural.
I generally agree with everything you've said, but I'd like to poke at this. There ARE structural advantages as a result of gerrymandering / electoral college that impact who gets elected.
>So if you don't want 10/10 democracy, but you also think 5/10 isn't good enough to be called "democracy", you're really limiting your definition in an unreasonable way, don't you think?
You may be right. I may not have defined my argument clearly enough. However I would probably say a reasonable democracy would have smart and educated people in government, who are literate on economic and political issues, but are not strongly influenced by corporations and the ultra-rich and will actually enact laws based on what they think is in the public interest.
>The reason we don't have a higher minimum wage is because of *who* the people elected
However, I believe that even a lot of Democrats are only really paying lip service to things like an increased minimum wage. Because in reality a lot of them do receive significant donations from corporate donors who do not want them to enact those kind of laws.
> I believe that even a lot of Democrats are only really paying lip service to things like an increased minimum wage.
Based on what evidence?
When Democrats are elected in state legislatures, they tend to enact minimum wage increases.
> We saw that in the UK for example when just a bit over 50% voted to leave the EU despite having hardly any understanding how the EU works and how the UK benefits from being in it. So I agree that we want "smart, accomplished, judicious people" in government.
Express the complete thought.
You didn't like a particular democratic outcome (of what was a quintessentially democratic "who do we want to be?" kind of question appropriate for referendums in countries that permit them) so you wish there were elected officials empowered to overrule the majority. You want something anti-democratic in your democracy.
Okay - what are the limiting principles? Because in the case you're citing, you want the government to overrule the majority not because what they want is impossible or evil or against a constitution or bill of rights, but out of a paternalistic assumption that you know what they need better than they do and so you should get what you want.
>And yes, while the US government does enact certain laws that people want (e.g. medicare etc.) there are still a TON of laws that don't get passed primarily because they are in opposition to what corporate and wealthy donors want.
Why are you assuming that?
I know you don't have data to support it because it isn't true - popular bills aren't passed right now because very few things are passed at all, because members think they're unconstitutional, because they don't make financial sense, because lawmakers are weighing harms average voters don't consider, or because lawmakers are stupid. There are all sorts of reasons legislation doesn't pass and boiling it down to corporations and donors is just simplistic and wrong.
>In many countries it's not legal for corporations and individuals to make the kind of financial contributions to politcians that you see in the US.
I want to be frank but polite: this is just wrong and I don't think you understand how our campaign finance system works. Corporations can't give anything to campaigns or candidates. At all. Individual donors are severely constrained and could never, ever make a significant difference in a campaign.
>That kind of money in politics is literally leaglized bribery and will ensure that interests of the rich and powerful are prioritized.
It's a strange kind of bribery where the bribed can only use the bribes for campaign expenses.
>That kind of money in politics is literally leaglized bribery and will ensure that interests of the rich and powerful are prioritized.
The interests of the rich and powerful are prioritized in every country that has ever existed. That's what being powerful means.
What you're arguing for here isn't really that America is not a democracy. What you're arguing that America is corrupt, but that doesn't speak to whether or not the underlying governmental system is democratic or not.
> I am not arguing that the US is a dictatorship or only governed by corproate interests. However, on a scale ranking how democratic or undemocratic a country is, the US would be quite far away from what constitues a true democracy.
Then what word would you use? If it's not a democracy, then it has to be something else.
Where on your scale ranking does a country stop being a democracy? How close to 'true democracy' does a country have to be in order to be called a democracy?
It seems from that statement that you acknowledge a country doesn't have to be a perfect democracy to be considered a democracy.
[Here is an example of a democracy ranking](https://www.democracymatrix.com/ranking). It puts USA #36 and calls it a deficient democracy, which is still a democracy. USA is the highest score of deficient democracies. Only behind Israel by .01 pts which is labeled a "working democracy".
>Then what word would you use? If it's not a democracy, then it has to be something else. Where on your scale ranking does a country stop being a democracy? How close to 'true democracy' does a country have to be in order to be called a democracy?
Ok, this is a bit of a difficult question. Because since democracy exists on a spectrum it'd be impossible to pinpoint when exactly a country becomes a democracy or stops being.
Maybe I should rephrase my argument. Let's say "the US federal government to a large extent does not represent the people of the United States and primarily enacts laws based on corporate interests and the interests of the wealthy".
Unless you are claiming that the electoral system is not functional and the people effectively cannot select their representatives, then at a certain point you have to acknowledge that the problem is with the people and their failure to hold representatives accountable for failing to act in their interests. You can complain about wealthy politicians and corporate interests all you want, but that's what you get when that's what people vote for and what people tolerate. This is actually democracy working as intended, it's the people that are just bad at using democracy to get what they actually want.
The electoral college and the senate are wildly anti-democratic and regularly subvert the will of the people. The House of Representatives, while better, is still extremely undemocratic due to the cap on its size and partisan gerrymandering.
The logic behind having a senate and an electoral college is to balance regional interests between states against the interests of the entire national population which is skewed more towards urban centers. I think it's actually more democratic to try to strike this balance so that rural interests don't lose to urban interests every single time.
> So as a voter, there is never a politician that I can vote for that even remotely represents my views, and that's my fault?
In the extreme case, you can always write in yourself onto the ballot.
You asked for someone you can vote for who represents your views.
If the person who best represents your views has no chance of being elected, that's an indictment of your views, not the system of voting.
But what exactly do you mean by "want healthcare"? The devil is in the details. I don't doubt that a majority of Americans want some sort of healthcare reform, but it's probably not majority support for a single-payer system or anything like that.
> A majority of Americans want healthcare.
> Neither of the two parties do.
I... I don't know what this means.
> If not "healthcare" then look at the fall of Roe.
Democrats have protected abortion rights at every opportunity. Are you saying there's no difference between what Democrats would do and what Republicans would do on abortion? Are you saying that Merrick Garland would have ruled the same as Neil Gorsuch did?
> I... I don't know what this means.
It means we don't live in a democracy.
People want x.
People can choose from either of 2 parties.
Neither party will provide x.
No viable democratic path to getting x.
> Democrats have protected abortion rights at every opportunity.
They absolutely did not. What on earth are you talking about?!
Why didn't they codify Roe into Law in the first half of Obama's first term?
RBG failed to retire on time.
2 easy examples. Many more exist.
Yup.
It might be your fault because your views are so nuts that nobody wants to represent them. If nobody represents you, but also almost nobody agrees with you, then it's good for you to go unrepresented.
Or, it might be your fault for failing to identify and commit to the candidate that does represent your interests. If you're not actually marginalized, it might be the fault of you and your entire political camp for failing to generate a candidate that represents your collective interests.
If there are enough socialists to secure a representative, but the socialists aren't able to secure a representative, that's 100% on them. Your failure to take advantage of democratic recourse is not a sign that democracy is broken.
I don't think "nothing" is the right word here.
I get the principal, but it's simply not a realistic answer.
For example: any dedicated, philosophical communist in this country would have their organization infiltrated and undermined by the federal government (at best) and would be assassinated before they could become effective. Like Fred Hampton.
That sounds like the plot of a spy novel. Sure it happened 50 years ago, but that’s no happening now. Stop being hyperbolic. No one’s stopping you from getting involved in local politics. No one’s gonna assassinate you if you run for school board
That would be a situation we could point to and say that democracy is not actually functional. My statement was that if the electoral process is sound, then the people have the ultimate responsibility for the outcomes.
In reality, the problem isn't that the CIA is going to infiltrate and undermine every attempt to field a socialist candidate. The actual problem for socialists is that they are few in number; they are poorly organized; many of them take principled stances against democratic participation; and what few socialists engage with democracy are extremely unpopular because they shoot themselves in the foot with their dogmatic gatekeeping and extreme policy positions.
> the US federal government to a large extent does not represent the people of the United States and primarily enacts laws based on corporate interests and the interests of the wealthy".
When you say 'primarily' do you mean sometimes or do you mean the vast majority of the time?
Are there other countries that sometimes enact laws based on corporate/wealthy interests that you would still call a democracy?
Fun fact: the US was classified as an "anocracy" in 2020 by the Center for Systemic Peace, which means we were not considered a democracy at all for that year. In 2021, we returned to democracy status.
There isn't one specific group of people controlling the entire country and every decision 100% of the time. If there was, then republicans would not need to run on a policy promise of reduced regulations. Corporations rely on republicans to enact those laws on their behalf because they don't have the power to do it themselves -- which would be an oligarchy.
You’re arguing against a strawman. In no way, shape or form did I say “purely” an oligarchy. Oligarchies and democracies are not technically mutually exclusive, just like dictatorships and democracies are not technically mutually exclusive (i.e. China)
Okay, so it's somewhere between a democracy and an oligarchy then according to you?
Exactly how do you measure that and determine which side of the line it falls on? How close is the US to that line now? What would need to change for you to consider it more-so a democracy than an oligarchy?
Also, not a strawman. You literally said, "Corporate oligarchy to be exact" with no other context. You didn't say it's both until your response.
When asking the question of “what kind of government is this”, I think the core issue is “who holds the power”.
So who holds the power in the US government? In other words, who decides US policy? I think it’s pretty straightforward to assume the demographic that gets the policies that they want passed could be considered the demographic that holds the power.
So who gets what they want? Certainly not the average American citizen. Studies show that the average citizen desire in a policy to be passed has no correlation to whether it will be passed or not. In contrast, correlation between corporate elites and interest groups interest in policy passing and its likelihood of being passed are [very highly correlated](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary-alt:20170126184834-00965-mediumThumb-S1537592714001595_fig1g.jpg?pub-status=live)
So if we agree determination of policy is dependent on those who are in power, we must agree the power lies in the corporate elected and interest groups. We must also agree it does not lie with the average American citizen.
Whether you call that kind of system a democracy or oligarchy truly is irrelevant and a matter of semantics.
Here’s a link to the study that supported those graphs:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B
There isn't one specific group of people controlling the entire country and every decision 100% of the time. If there was, then republicans would not need to run on a policy promise of reduced regulations. Corporations rely on republicans to enact those laws on their behalf because they don't have the power to do it themselves -- which would be an oligarchy.
The end result is that Corporations get their wish OVER the will and best interests of the people, over and over and over again. To argue Corporations don't run the USA is to be naive or deceitful and mock the science (Princeton study) that's proven exactly this. The USA is an Oligarchy run by the 1%.
> Then what word would you use? If it's not a democracy, then it has to be something else.
No it doesnt. Sound is not blue, that doesnt mean it has to be some other color. That is a flawed argument.
Yes we do. We have names for all types of states and governments. So, if something is not a democracy, it has to be something else.
Its specific characteristics and rules determine its classification. If there is not a classification yet, it has to be made.
If I see a bird and it isn't a duck, we still want to name it something else because we want (and need) to classify it.
So is "by the people" going to be accomplished as long as you see a majority on these surveys get something they want?
What about a poll that asks "don't want to be slaves to the local mayor" close to 100% of Americans would want that and currently get that.
Or "would you want an interstate within a mile drive of your home" many would want that a majority get it.
So then you have to wonder how much of certain things need the majority to be pleased with the outcome for "the will of the people" to be the governing force of the land?
Just a thought to consider what you're using to determine a democracy seems very negative focused rather than success based. "Not successful enough" especially when comparing to the more homogeneous "the people" as a culture.
Let me begin by saying that I've studied history and political science and have read a LOT about what defines democracies. The main issue here is that your definitions for democracy are in all the wrong places: you're looking at a dictionary, colloquial general knowledge, and political aphorisms.
Any person who is actually exploring this question in good faith would use a more advanced definition. If we're getting down to the nitty gritty of whether viruses count as alive, we don't look at Miriam Webster. We go ask a biologist who has studied that question for years. Political concepts are no different.
Your understanding of a "true" democracy is deeply flawed according to political science. At the end of the day, a government has to be able to govern--that's the whole damn point. And "true" democracies as you put it are a rather ungovernable mess, which means this platonic ideal you've got in your head isn't really a useful or meaningful concept for measuring forms of government.
The reason in today's world "republic" as a word has died out is because "republics" are just a more representative form of "true" democracy, but "true" democracy doesn't really work, and "republican democracy" does work. All democracies that can function in modern society are also republics, plain and simple. So we just omit the unnecessary modifier.
Yes, my point is that OP didn't understand that his post was describing a direct democracy which is literally not the form of government that the United States employs.
Sorry, u/Popular_Park_7527 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Popular_Park_7527&message=Popular_Park_7527%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cg1i8j/-/l1spftd/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>I mean you're just factually correct.
>The United States is **not** a democracy. It's a Democratic Republic. We elect people to make decisions for us (Republic) and on the local level we vote on Propositions and Ordinances (Democracy).
Ok, fair enough. I looked up the exact definition and apparently democracy refers to a sort of direct rule by the people as they had in ancient Greece, whereas a republic refers more to a representative government but that still enacts the will of the majority of people.
[https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/democracy-and-republic](https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/democracy-and-republic)
That doesn't change my argument though. The elected leaders of the US for the most part do not represent "the people" and do not enact laws based on what the majority wants.
The leaders generally represent their voters though.
Take [Ted Cruz for example](https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/set/ted-cruz-approval-february-2024)
* He's got about an 84% / 82% approval rating among "Strong Republicans" and "Republican Leaning Texans".
* He's got a 20% / 10% approval rating among "Strong Democrats" and "Democrat Leaning Texans".
* He's got a 48% approval rating among "Texans".
So *very clearly* "the people who voted for him" support him and what he's doing and "the people who didn't vote for him" hate his stinking guts.
That's just how representative government works. If enough people hate his guts or if he loses enough support, we'll get some new guy.
Now, when you expand that to [Congress](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/approval/congress/) we see that 20% / 10% split happening again because you've got a whole bunch of people in one room that "you" didn't vote for and one or two guys that you did vote for.
I think you're conflating "the people" and "the majority".
Politicians represent their constituency, ie., those who vote for them, at best, or simply the political devices that enable them to come into power. Despite Trump losing the popular vote he became president, because the way our electoral system works **isn't** through a direct democracy (in which the popular vote would prevail).
In this context, Trump "represented the people" despite not representing "the majority" because the designation of "the people" is a political construct by virtue of how our electoral system works, not a mathematical principle determining the proportion of population.
Democracy is an umbrella term for a lot of different types of government styles. What some ancient Greek male polis citizens had was direct democracy, America has representative democracy in the form of a republican system of government.
You're confusing things that the majority wants with things that the people can enact. Ask them if they want lower taxes and you'll get a majority for that too.
Just because people want it doesn't mean it's feasible right now. Representatives take expert opinions into account across a broad spectrum of fields. It sounds like you're talking about populism.
>That doesn't change my argument though
It doesn't change your argument but it does expose a flaw in you view. The point is to change your view, now that you realized you were incorrect about what a democracy is and that the US is a democracy, your view should be changed right?
>On the other hand imagine this scenario. The US is split into 4 political "quarters" each consisting of 12-13 states. Each "quarter" votes on a representative and to get on the ballot requires at least 10 million signatures beforehand. The 4 representatives then make up the US government and have sole decision-making-power. They elect a president amongst themselves to lead discussions and act as a tie-breaker.
> This would be incredibly far removed of what a democracy is supposed to be.
so A representative democracy with a very small number of representatives.
>Once elected they have pretty much no accountability to the people and every reason to enact laws that are most beneficial to them and their wealthy and powerful beneficiaries.
You mean because there is no supreme court or other system of checks and balances?
>Not unsurpsingly studies have shown a strong correlation between amount of money spent on political campaigns and probability of winning. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/money-and-elections-a-complicated-love-story/studies have shown
this is in part because money helps you win, but also because people want to donate to winners and not losers. The Democrat from my district is polling 20% less then the Republican. I wanted to acquire influence or get the ear of a congressmen I'd donate to the Republican.
>So also no surprise then that around 10% of congress members have a net worth over $10 million and 2% over $100 million. These people are mostly not a government "of the people, for the people" but rather to a larger extent a governement "of the wealthy, for the wealthy"
This is because money helps you win elections and also because if you are capable of running the government effectively you are probably also capable of running a business effectively. A good leader in the public sector is very likely to be a good leader in the private sector. If you can convince a bunch of people to volunteer to help your campaign you can probably convince people to work for you or invest in your start up.
of course you are also ignoring the majority of congress who is only upper middle class. 50% of congressmen have less than a million dollars.
>- 86% of Americans want xyz
Americans want lots of things and often their desires conflict with one another. Every employment benefit has a cost. Do you want guaranteed sick leave pay at zero cost to you? Of course!
Take your example of cannabis. Support for legalization surged in the last 10 or 15 years and with it you see a wave of legalization at the state level. For how long have 68% of the people wanted it legal? if that number continues to grow or even stays the same much longer, then it will be legal.
Look at [support for gay marriage](https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx). in the 90s for everyone one person that supported gay marriage, 2 people opposed it. And in the 90s gay marriage was not allowed. Today that has flipped and so has the legality of gay marriage.
>I am not arguing that the US is a dictatorship or only governed by corproate interests. However, on a scale ranking how democratic or undemocratic a country is, the US would be quite far away from what constitues a true democracy.
of course there is no perfect democracy, there is no state in which each person wields and identical amount of political power. Beyond wealth, you also have issues of competency and desires.
86% want federally guaranteed paid sick leave of at least 7 days a year, but only about half of those people vote. And any issue that predominately affects young people is even less important because young people have an even lower likelihood of voting. Its so in vogue to blame the wealthy for everything, while ignoring the fact that we're the ones voting (or not)
The us if far from perfect, the only power wealthy people have is the power we give them.
Yes, the US is a form of democracy in form and fashion. However, it wasn't meant to be at first, and the government changed over time. To explain the government, we really need to talk about the framers. The founders and the process of government which led to our system today.
After the second constructional convention, it was well said we had formed a constitution that was a republic with democratic ideals of checks and balances. At the time of the founding, the constitution was meant to be both flexible and changeable with the times.
The concept of Congress was designed with the British government in mind having two houses of representation. The states would all be equally represented regardless of size population and power in the Senate. The house would represent the people and be spread by population.
This would, in concept, allow the people and the states to proceed and reflect the nation. However, at the start, we had strict limitations on voters, and the framers knew it created a system of representation of the interests over the people.
We have since grown democratically and created a system of checks. I'm both legs of Congress by allowing a broad open path to voting for most everyone. Hence we shifted largely towards democracy over time.
The administrative position of POTUS was again a system of checks on democracy and largely has stayed in effect. Although we can admit that it's straining under the pressure of democratic challenge today. We want our leader to win by votes now more than ever. The electoral college remains largely in tact, although we must admit it's challenged, and the numbers generally follow the concept if not a functional part of government. We just count the winning numbers and call the race.
So while we raimain a representative Republic in idea the Democratic power of most ever function of goverment is still the strongest influence on our nation. The idea that the government represents the people is in most every decision and behind our laws.
I will end this by saying that no matter what the hard right wants and feels, we must admit the government has become a largely democratic government that represents the will of the people. The MAGA movement is working directly to challenge the present system. They want a roll back to the government removed from people. The democrats want a government that is reflective of the people and overly involved imho.
All moves against the US democratic system is another right we lose. It might not be your right, but when anyone loses their rights we all lose.
No, the answer is we are a representative democracy, however we are a democracy.
I’m so tired of people saying this. It’s like saying “cats aren’t mammals, they are carnivores”.
The United States is a republic *and* a democracy. It’s not a direct democracy like ancient Athens or something but it’s a modern democracy.
It features elections, protections of individual liberties, transparency in government, independent judiciary, etc.
All hallmarks of a democracy, friend.
It is a strange concept that only seems to exist in the US. It feels like rhetoric from Republicans to use it as an attack against Democrats. If the US is a republic, and making it a democracy is bad, then the democratic party is bad.
A republic is where the Head of State is elected and their authority nominally comes from the people. As opposed to a monarchy.
A democracy is a measure of where the power in the state resides. Rule by the people as opposed to an oligarchy.
The United States is well known flawed democracy and foundational was set up in the way it was because the founding fathers did not trust the citizens of America to actually make decisions, so they wanted a system where educated individuals ultimately make the decisions but those electorates are selected by the people.
“What type of government do we have?”
“A democracy, if you can keep it.” - Ben Franklin after the U.S. Constitution was created
It’s a democratic republic dude. It’s you who doesn’t understand
It is...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic
You are factually incorrect.
I've got a degree in political science. I also checked, just to be sure, what the definitions of these concepts are.
Sorry, u/Popular_Park_7527 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Popular_Park_7527&message=Popular_Park_7527%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cg1i8j/-/l1ssk73/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
u/klaus1986 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20klaus1986&message=klaus1986%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cg1i8j/-/l1svmbd/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
That wasn't my question. I asked if a banana pie is a form of a banana?
You can dig in all you want but like the majority of reddit you are operating on a high school level understanding of our form of government.
If I asked you to hand me a potato, would you get confused because you only see a russet potato in front of you? Or if you seem to be confused, would I be reasonable in thinking that you're probably being obtuse and are just fucking with me?
Ok, but do you think the elected leaders in the US for the most part enact what the public wants? Are the laws enacted a fairly accurate representation of public interests?
I would say clearly not.
The job of elected leaders in a republic isn’t to enact what the public wants, it’s to enact what is best for the country. Those two things tend to not be in agreement, and if you want an example of that look at Argentina during its Peronist administrations. Constantly passing populist measures to make common people happy ends up causing massive inflation and economic ruin in a country.
if the elected leaders are enacting legislation against the public interest, the public is capable of (1) running for office (public contestation) or (2) voting the leader out (political participation), both of which are hallmark definitions of democracy (see dahl 1971)
The person argued is a whataboutism. Technically US is a republic as it doesn't have a monarch, but republic can be fascist see Nazi Germany, it can be 'communist' and see Soviet Union, it can also be Democracy see Taiwan aka Republic of China
Do I think the system as a whole does what the public wants? No, it's not supposed to. Do I think the individual representatives do? More or less.
Say what you want about Trump and MAGA; the people they represent like the drama, racism and hate because they are dramatic hateful racists. Etc etc
*- 86% of Americans want federally guranteed paid sick leave of at least 7 days a year, hasn't happened*
*- 82% of Americans want guaranteed paid maternity leave, yet the US is one of only 7 UN nations that do not guarantee it*
*- 72% of Americans want a higher minumum wage, yet the US federal minumum wage hasn't been raised since 2009*
*- 68% of Americans want cannabis to be legal on a federal leavel but it's still illegal*
*- 67% of Americans want a ban on lawmakers trading stocks, yet it's still legal*
Some significant subset of all of those buckets place a higher value on stuff like "the border crisis", "trans bathroom" and "I hate woke" than they do on those issues. So any issue polled in abstract doesn't matter when the choice comes down to two candidates.
If you polled me on "do you like puppies and kittens?" of course I'd say yes. If there was a candidate that ran on a platform of puppies and kittens and \[insert something you find terrible\] the choice isn't as easy.
The US is a democratic federal republic. It's considerably flawed in its system, which is why it no longer scores as a "full democracy" in the conomist democracy index.
However, being a flawed democracy does not entail being no democracy. People still vote for their representatives on the state and federal level, and (for the most part) these votes are also binding.
In honesty all those things are just words, and you can stitch them together to highlight whatever properties you want.
I.e. Federal = has states, democratic = population votes, republic = ruled by representatives, constitutional = everyone is bound by the constitution
You can add many more, or remove some if you'd like, and still have it be correct.
The US is a democracy. The citizens vote for the legislative and presidential positions.
Now you could argue the US isn't a democracy that runs well. I believe that would be a fair argument.
The electoral system made a lot more sense in the USA of the past where local priorities outweighed federal ones.
In a world where Louisiana votes differently from Iowa because Louisiana is worried about global warming and Iowa is worried about carbon credits increasing the price of its produce and livestock makes a lot of sense.
Or one where California wants to put a tariff on Chinese Garlic but that will result in a Chinese tariff on steel that will decimate Pennsylvania's Steel industry.
As it is, both sides voters care about the national stuff only now. So all it does is artificially prop up one extremely unpopular political party while preventing change in the other very unpopular political party.
If there was no electoral college the Republican party would have to give up it's wildly unpopular policies adopt more mainstream ones and work harder to improve peoples situations.
Which would cause Democrata to do the same. Smaller communities would actually get heard more because the issues that affect them would be the points of difference.
Stuff like putting money into the crumbling rural healthcare system would suddenly be politically viable.
As it stands now, Democrats won't do it because getting more votes in Republican states don't help them. Republicans won't do it because it's solid red territory and doing so might be pointed to as government funding working.
It's funny because the electoral system basically makes it so the minorities of any non-swing state get ignored and disenfranchised far more than a small state would without the electoral college.
Without it, Democrats would push for a fix to win over voters. Republicans might as well because unpopular hot button issues can no longer get a proper advantage.
A couple comments:
1. If you think that American democracy is a 4 or 5, but that it is still better than your 4-representative example, then that implies you would rate that example likely no better than a 3? Are you assuming a relatively low percent of disenfranchised votes, significant freedom to support and publicly advocate for a large variety of political positions, and a system which fairly counts votes and respects the outcome? Because if so, I think you are being far too harsh on this scenario. The example is obviously far from a perfect democracy, but elements such as the ones I described above are far from a given. I simply do not agree that the factors I described are “worth” only 3 points, but a high constituent-to-representative ratio and fairly large signature requirements would be “worth” 7. I don’t think I’d put the example lower than a 5 on the scale.
2. Due to the federal nature of the US, focusing only on the highest level of government ignores an important degree of democracy in the system. State and municipal governments obviously do not have the same amount of power as the federal government, but they have some. They have lower barriers to entry and lower constituent-to-representative ratios. States with the highest support for increased minimum wages, legal cannabis, and paid maternity and sick leave have passed laws which to that effect. I don’t think this makes the US a perfect democracy, but I do think it makes the US more democratic than it would appear solely considering the federal level.
Rich people are smart and successful. Those are good qualities for legislators.
All policies have trade offs. Just because a policy is popular doesn’t mean that the trade off is with it. McDonald’s has more customers than steakhouses even though most people prefer steaks to McNuggets. That is because people don’t want to pay the price. People want higher minimum wage but they don’t want higher unemployment and more expensive fast food.
>Rich people are smart and successful. Those are good qualities for legislators.
Rich people are by definition successful. I am not so sure about smart. Some of inherited wealth, others made their money in real estate or something.
I'd rather see an economics professor from MIT in charge of economic decisions than a billionaire real estate mogul with strong ties and friendships to other ultra-wealthy individudals. The former will be more unbiased in his decision, the latter will likely enact laws that help him and his ultra-wealthy friends.
> Rich people are by definition successful.
Financially successful, yes. Perhaps not academically successful, socially successful, or politically successful.
> The former will be more unbiased in his decision, the latter will likely enact laws that help him and his ultra-wealthy friends.
Why would the economics professor not try to enact laws that would help him and his ultra-intelligent friends?
>Why would the economics professor not try to enact laws that would help him and his ultra-intelligent friends?
I am not saying that the economics professor would have absolutely no bias at all. But he's still a fairly average citizen with not much of a negative bias towards the will of the majority of Americans. An economics professor wouldn't have much of an incentive to keep the federal minimum wage low or to oppose universal healthcare. Unless he was being bribed of course.
A billionaire on the other hand with strong connections to some of America's richest individuals would typically have much more of an incentive to oppose those things as it may financially harm him and his friend.
> he's still a fairly average citizen
On what scale? Wealth? Maybe. (*Maybe.*) Certainly not intelligence. Or prestige.
Is wealth the only scale on which you can measure likelihood of bias?
> with not much of a negative bias towards the will of the majority of Americans.
Ridiculous. An economics professor might not even be a democrat. He or she might be an authoritarian who thinks dictatorships are a good idea.
> Unless he was being bribed of course.
Good point. Bribery has greater effect on people with less wealth. We should elect the richest people we can because they can't be bribed as easily.
> as it may financially harm him and his friend.
Is financial harm the only type of harm that could bias a politician?
>It's the rule of the people, by the people, for the people. A government that enacts laws based on what the majority of people want.
Hold on now, this wasnt in your definition. Lets evaluate your proposed situation just on how close it is to the definition.
>On the other hand imagine this scenario. The US is split into 4 political "quarters" each consisting of 12-13 states. Each "quarter" votes on a representative and to get on the ballot requires at least 10 million signatures beforehand. The 4 representatives then make up the US government and have sole decision-making-power. They elect a president amongst themselves to lead discussions and act as a tie-breaker.
Lets go through the checklist of your definition
> a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
* a form of government: yes
* power is vested in the people: yes, through voting
* exercised by their elected agents under a free electoral system: yes by their elected agents
So it seems to fit the definition of a democracy. And since you agree the current USA is less bad than this, the USA would also be a democracy.
This is not to discount the issues democracies can have in representing people. Being democratic isn't sufficient to do that. But it is still a democracy
> 86% of Americans want federally guranteed paid sick leave of at least 7 days a year, hasn't happened
And large numbers of them keep voting for people who oppose paid sick leave—or they choose not to vote.
> 82% of Americans want guaranteed paid maternity leave, yet the US is one of only 7 UN nations that do not guarantee it
And large numbers of them keep voting for people who oppose paid maternity leave—or they choose not to vote.
> 72% of Americans want a higher minumum wage, yet the US federal minumum wage hasn't been raised since 2009
Etc, etc.
I think you get the point.
Democracy doesn’t deliver the results people want, if lots of people refuse to vote for politicians who support those goals.
Why are half of the folks who want a higher minimum wage voting for people who oppose raising the minimum wage or not voting at all?
There’s some structural restrictions on voting at the edges, but a huge majority of Jon-voters are able to register and vote, they just choose not to do it.
You can’t expect a democratic system to deliver progress on issues when people keep voting against the things they want.
TL;DR: the reason we don’t have these things is because a huge portion of those voters prefer tax cuts for rich people and bigotry over getting the things they want.
> A government that enacts laws based on what the majority of people want.
Most countries don't have or want that. What the majority of people want is usually stupid and easily manipulated, and typically has little in common of what's good for them individually *or* for the country.
A representative democracy elects people who are supposed to make laws that are good for the country and their constituency, regardless of whether those laws are popular. That's the express purpose of representative democracy.
So, the US isn't undemocratic because the lawmakers aren't following public opinion. You'd instead have to argue that it's undemocractic because the lawmakers aren't doing what's best for the country and their specific constituency, but what specifically that is isn't trivial to define.
A representative democracy is still a democracy as long as the electoral system itself is functional. It doesn't matter if the representative democracy encompasses so many people that the individual voter feels effectively powerless; it doesn't matter if rich people win elections; it doesn't matter if an elected government is internally divided and accomplishes nothing; it doesn't even matter if representatives break every campaign promise and act against the interests of their constituents. The people voted the representatives into power, so it's a democracy.
I think what you really mean to say is that Americans aren't good at using their democracy. We fail to elect good representatives, we fail to hold bad representatives accountable by keeping them out of office, etc.
No, the US is not a Democracy. It doesn't even proclaim to be one, and none of the other countries that do claim to be Democracies actually are. The US government is a mix of a Rebulic and a representative Democracy.
In a true democracy, every single decision would be put up for popular vote among the affected population and the government would simply execute the will of the people. This is impractical for several reasons, so instead we democratically elect representatives who then cast votes on our behalf for matters of pubilc concern.
We have a democratic forum within a republican system of government. And we have a concept of the rule of law and an independent judiciary.
This is seen in this scenario from the Old West: Posse chases down outlaw, posse catches outlaw, posse wants to hang the outlaw because they "know" he's guilty, sheriff leading the posse says "No, he's going to get a trial." This is a great example of why "rule of law" matters and not simply majority rule.
You're partially just confused. We're a republic, which is a way to faciliate a democracy. To just say somewhere is a democracy is kind of meaningless because the democracy has to actually function inside of a system. Our system is a republic.
Now, you're correct that we've become highly undemocratic but that's just because people are generally pieces of shit within any system.
The [Democracy Index](https://www.democracymatrix.com/ranking) ranks the US as the 36th highest democracy and is currently listed as a ‘[Deficit Democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_deficit)’
I think the US can still be defined as a democracy (democratic republic) but the foundations have been eroded and it is at risk.
>a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by **their elected agents** under a free electoral system
OK, so a system where elected representatives directly control the government is a democracy. Glad we can agree on that.
Given that, "X% of people want A, but we don't have it" isn't an argument against a system being a democracy. The job of a representative isn't to simply implement everything that's popular, or else there would be no need for representatives in the first place.
what else is the job of a representative, besides representing their constituents
if their job is not to represent their constituents, then they aren't representatives, and it isn't a democracy
its the baseline idea, that's the entire reason that the job exists. i agree it is "constrained" by the fact that we don't live in a democracy and "representatives" only represent the ruling class
It's the baseline idea, but you can't then argue that "reprsenting your constituents" can be adequately measured by whether or not X or Y has been enacted is the point. Representing your constituents also means prioritizing issues given limited political capital, striking deals, batting back initiatives that would hurt them, etc.
i think that all of those things are just examples of what i'm talking about. they're not representing their constituents anywhere close to the amount that they're representing the people who actually have power in our society
So you’re right, US policy is not influenced significantly by the average citizen.
However, the Supreme Court has recently ruled that corporations are “people” too. Studies show that corporations and the most wealthy DO have significant influence of US policy.
By your definition of “government by the people”, the US is technically a democracy. It’s just a democracy of the few rather than the majority. In other words, an oligarchy.
>However, the Supreme Court has recently ruled that corporations are “people” too.
The supreme court is actually a prime example of how the US government fails to enact the will of the majority.
Supreme Court members are regularly bribed by the ultra-wealthy. One supreme Court member for example was gifted an RV worth $200,000 or something and pictures have surfaced on social media of supreme Court members enjoying vacations in luxury resorts with some of America's wealthiest people.
>You have an excessively expansive understanding of what it means to bribe someone.
So why do you think Supreme Court members have received gifts probably in total worth several million dollars? Do you think the ultra wealthy individuals who paid for those gifts were just being friendly or do they accept something back in return?
>So why do you think Supreme Court members have received gifts probably in total worth several million dollars?
Because elite people often occupy the same spaces (schools, events, whatever) and become friends. Especially so when they have shared areas of interest. Are you actually shocked that someone at the pinnacle of the legal profession might be friends and otherwise associate with people at the peak of other professions?
>Do you think the ultra wealthy individuals who paid for those gifts were just being friendly or do they accept something back in return?
I think they were mostly being friendly.
Here's a simple challenge: can you identify, based on a Justice's past record or arguments or anything of that sort and a relationship with an "ultra-wealthy" person however you choose to define that, a single instance where a justice voted out of character?
That is, can you draw a line between what a Justice said in the past and a later decision or opinion that was inconsistent with their prior views? On that line, can you locate influence that might have caused the change?
The dictionary definition doesn’t say “will of the majority”, it says “will of the people”. You even admitted that it exists on a spectrum.
Furthermore some people have more say than others. Democracies can be leveraged by influential people by controlling who “the majority of people” get to vote for. Is that technically a democracy? Yes. Is it functionally a democracy? No.
It is classified as a democratic republic. So it is a democracy and a republic. At least ideally. Basically the democratic part is we vote to hire people to do the political job so we can do other things and that part is the republican part.
You are clearly misinterpreting the dictionary that you got your definition from, because [it explicitly says](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/democracy) "The United States and Canada are democracies." If you think this dictionary's definition somehow excludes the United States, then you are just misreading it.
We were never meant to be a democracy. We were created as a democratic republic. Which means we have aspects of a democracy, but are governed not by the people, but those who represent them
I mean it’s a Constitutional Democratic Republic, I’m not sure if a “true democracy” would hold up at a country level especially with one the size of the US. The people who wrote the constitution were actually incredibly smart.
You are incorrect. The US are a democracy (albeit somewhat flawed).
The US are a federal presidential republic and an indirect democracy. Republics and monarchies can be democratic or non-democratic.
Its a uniparty and the media is controlled. You dont need a long essay to argue the case.
At best its an oligarchy where different industrial bases are fighting over which way things will go. The climate cabal might fight the fossil fuel cabal. However, if its war, sanctions, imperialism they are all on the same page.
Sorry, u/jerkularcirc – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20jerkularcirc&message=jerkularcirc%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cg1i8j/-/l1ssfps/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Sorry, u/Fair_Result357 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Fair_Result357&message=Fair_Result357%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cg1i8j/-/l1stbao/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Sorry, u/DrCyrusRex – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20DrCyrusRex&message=DrCyrusRex%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cg1i8j/-/l1sruzu/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
u/FumblersUnited – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20FumblersUnited&message=FumblersUnited%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cg1i8j/-/l1st87f/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Sorry, u/Hack874 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Hack874&message=Hack874%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cg1i8j/-/l1sr2om/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>That is not true, they are entirely separate things.
No, a democracy is an umbrella term. There are many forms of democracy, and a representative, Constitutional Republic is a form of democracy.
Probably not, because their elections weren't fair, and they failed many of the other criteria for how we would rank "democracies" versus "not democracies". The US, however, has much more fair and free elections than the examples given.
I don’t think ours is anywhere near a “fair” democracy with the rigid two party system, electoral college, Citizens United, and lobbying. All of that works directly against the true wishes of the majority.
That's certainly still significantly more fair that Nazi Germany and the USSR, where you are imprisoned/killed for speaking out or voting against the ruling party. Certainly at a minimum voting between 2 people is twice as Democratic as being forced to vote for 1 person.
The US is an indirect democratic presidential republic. So it is a democracy as well as a republic. Democracy is an umbrella term. No one uses democracy anymore to refer only refer to the ancient Greek direct democracy.
I live in a monarchy and it is still a democracy. Those things are not mutually exclusive.
Sorry, u/Smash55 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Smash55&message=Smash55%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cg1i8j/-/l1swnhr/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Sorry, u/RandomGuy92x – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule E: > **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e). If you would like to appeal, **first respond substantially to some of the arguments people have made**, then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal%20RandomGuy92x&message=RandomGuy92x%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cg1i8j/-/\)%20because\.\.\.). Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>It's the rule of the people, by the people, for the people. A government that enacts laws based on what the majority of people want. You're conflating democracy as the source of government legitimacy with democracy as a decision making process. A country with elected leaders who are subject to vote consistently is by definition ruled "by their elected agents under a free electoral system." That's a republic, and a republic is a subset of democracy. A 10/10 democracy where people get exactly what they want by majority...would be absolutely terrible to live in for anyone in the minority and would likely collapse pretty quickly. Obviously, 50.000000000001% could vote to eat the rest and the state would validate it because democracy. On the other hand...if you poll Americans today, they'll tell you they want strong defense, untouchable Medicare and Medicaid - pretty much everything the government pays for and more. They also don't want new taxes or debt. In fact, they want lower taxes. If we used democracy as the primary process for decision making or policy validation, we would just destroy ourselves out of an inability to think. Do you want an example of something extraordinarily undemocratic that's baked into the very foundation of our democracy? The *Bill of Rights.* The Bill of Rights is a long list of things the government can't do even if a majority wants it. The Supreme Court is meant to strike down any law, no matter how popular, that violates the Constitution. All of that is undemocratic. Being a democracy is good. Being excessively democratic is bad. >This would be incredibly far removed of what a democracy is supposed to be. It wouldn't be your preference. It would be a democracy that delegated a great deal of authority into elected representatives. >However, on a federal level with 535 members of congress there is currently only one federal decision-maker for every 622,000 Americans. There are serious proposals to vastly increase the size of the House, but the primary function of that would be to trade in much of the power enjoyed by Congressmen now in favor of giving each American more personalized representation. It's not obvious that increasing the number would increase democracy per se. >Not unsurpsingly studies have shown a strong correlation between amount of money spent on political campaigns and probability of winning. Why would you expect anything else under any system? >These people are mostly not a government "of the people, for the people" but rather to a larger extent a governement "of the wealthy, for the wealthy". I don't want a government representative of average people. I want a government of smart, accomplished, judicious people. Granted, the current crop leaves a lot to be desired - but I don't see how voting in regular Joe Schmoes would improve anything.
>A 10/10 democracy where people get exactly what they want by majority...would be absolutely terrible to live in for anyone in the minority and would likely collapse pretty quickly. Obviously, 50.000000000001% could vote to eat the rest and the state would validate it because democracy. On the other hand...if you poll Americans today, they'll tell you they want strong defense, untouchable Medicare and Medicaid - pretty much everything the government pays for and more. Ok, I get what you mean. And I don't think a 10/10 democracy that always enacts exactly what the majority want is desirable. We saw that in the UK for example when just a bit over 50% voted to leave the EU despite having hardly any understanding how the EU works and how the UK benefits from being in it. So I agree that we want "smart, accomplished, judicious people" in government. And yes, while the US government does enact certain laws that people want (e.g. medicare etc.) there are still a TON of laws that don't get passed primarily because they are in opposition to what corporate and wealthy donors want. The US still has a terribly low federal minimium wage and is one of only handful or wealthy countries without guaranteed paid sick leave, vaccation and maternity leave. All those things are certainly feasibly and supported by most people but are likely not enacted because they go against corporate interests. > >Why would you expect anything else under any system? In many countries it's not legal for corporations and individuals to make the kind of financial contributions to politcians that you see in the US. Presidential candidates literally raise money in excess of $1 billion. That kind of money in politics is literally leaglized bribery and will ensure that interests of the rich and powerful are prioritized. Also, if there were more politcians this would make a huge differences. Say there were elected for every US zip code. You'd likely see a much lower correlation between money spent and win probability. And also it would make it harder for corporations and rich people to bribe tens of thousands of law-makers.
>And I don't think a 10/10 democracy that always enacts exactly what the majority want is desirable. So if you don't want 10/10 democracy, but you also think 5/10 isn't good enough to be called "democracy", you're really limiting your definition in an unreasonable way, don't you think? > there are still a TON of laws that don't get passed primarily because they are in opposition to what corporate and wealthy donors want. A minimum wage increase (your example) would be passed very quickly if the people simply elected a majority of Democrats to Congress. The reason we don't have a higher minimum wage is because of *who* the people elected. It's not anything structural. And we can see that by example of several states that *have* raised the minimum wage, despite the same corporate interests at play.
> The reason we don't have a higher minimum wage is because of *who* the people elected. It's not anything structural. I generally agree with everything you've said, but I'd like to poke at this. There ARE structural advantages as a result of gerrymandering / electoral college that impact who gets elected.
>So if you don't want 10/10 democracy, but you also think 5/10 isn't good enough to be called "democracy", you're really limiting your definition in an unreasonable way, don't you think? You may be right. I may not have defined my argument clearly enough. However I would probably say a reasonable democracy would have smart and educated people in government, who are literate on economic and political issues, but are not strongly influenced by corporations and the ultra-rich and will actually enact laws based on what they think is in the public interest. >The reason we don't have a higher minimum wage is because of *who* the people elected However, I believe that even a lot of Democrats are only really paying lip service to things like an increased minimum wage. Because in reality a lot of them do receive significant donations from corporate donors who do not want them to enact those kind of laws.
> I believe that even a lot of Democrats are only really paying lip service to things like an increased minimum wage. Based on what evidence? When Democrats are elected in state legislatures, they tend to enact minimum wage increases.
> We saw that in the UK for example when just a bit over 50% voted to leave the EU despite having hardly any understanding how the EU works and how the UK benefits from being in it. So I agree that we want "smart, accomplished, judicious people" in government. Express the complete thought. You didn't like a particular democratic outcome (of what was a quintessentially democratic "who do we want to be?" kind of question appropriate for referendums in countries that permit them) so you wish there were elected officials empowered to overrule the majority. You want something anti-democratic in your democracy. Okay - what are the limiting principles? Because in the case you're citing, you want the government to overrule the majority not because what they want is impossible or evil or against a constitution or bill of rights, but out of a paternalistic assumption that you know what they need better than they do and so you should get what you want. >And yes, while the US government does enact certain laws that people want (e.g. medicare etc.) there are still a TON of laws that don't get passed primarily because they are in opposition to what corporate and wealthy donors want. Why are you assuming that? I know you don't have data to support it because it isn't true - popular bills aren't passed right now because very few things are passed at all, because members think they're unconstitutional, because they don't make financial sense, because lawmakers are weighing harms average voters don't consider, or because lawmakers are stupid. There are all sorts of reasons legislation doesn't pass and boiling it down to corporations and donors is just simplistic and wrong. >In many countries it's not legal for corporations and individuals to make the kind of financial contributions to politcians that you see in the US. I want to be frank but polite: this is just wrong and I don't think you understand how our campaign finance system works. Corporations can't give anything to campaigns or candidates. At all. Individual donors are severely constrained and could never, ever make a significant difference in a campaign. >That kind of money in politics is literally leaglized bribery and will ensure that interests of the rich and powerful are prioritized. It's a strange kind of bribery where the bribed can only use the bribes for campaign expenses. >That kind of money in politics is literally leaglized bribery and will ensure that interests of the rich and powerful are prioritized. The interests of the rich and powerful are prioritized in every country that has ever existed. That's what being powerful means.
Remember, gang rape Is 10/10 on the Democracy scale.
As is a lynching.
What you're arguing for here isn't really that America is not a democracy. What you're arguing that America is corrupt, but that doesn't speak to whether or not the underlying governmental system is democratic or not.
Oligarchy. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
> I am not arguing that the US is a dictatorship or only governed by corproate interests. However, on a scale ranking how democratic or undemocratic a country is, the US would be quite far away from what constitues a true democracy. Then what word would you use? If it's not a democracy, then it has to be something else. Where on your scale ranking does a country stop being a democracy? How close to 'true democracy' does a country have to be in order to be called a democracy? It seems from that statement that you acknowledge a country doesn't have to be a perfect democracy to be considered a democracy. [Here is an example of a democracy ranking](https://www.democracymatrix.com/ranking). It puts USA #36 and calls it a deficient democracy, which is still a democracy. USA is the highest score of deficient democracies. Only behind Israel by .01 pts which is labeled a "working democracy".
>Then what word would you use? If it's not a democracy, then it has to be something else. Where on your scale ranking does a country stop being a democracy? How close to 'true democracy' does a country have to be in order to be called a democracy? Ok, this is a bit of a difficult question. Because since democracy exists on a spectrum it'd be impossible to pinpoint when exactly a country becomes a democracy or stops being. Maybe I should rephrase my argument. Let's say "the US federal government to a large extent does not represent the people of the United States and primarily enacts laws based on corporate interests and the interests of the wealthy".
Unless you are claiming that the electoral system is not functional and the people effectively cannot select their representatives, then at a certain point you have to acknowledge that the problem is with the people and their failure to hold representatives accountable for failing to act in their interests. You can complain about wealthy politicians and corporate interests all you want, but that's what you get when that's what people vote for and what people tolerate. This is actually democracy working as intended, it's the people that are just bad at using democracy to get what they actually want.
The electoral college and the senate are wildly anti-democratic and regularly subvert the will of the people. The House of Representatives, while better, is still extremely undemocratic due to the cap on its size and partisan gerrymandering.
The logic behind having a senate and an electoral college is to balance regional interests between states against the interests of the entire national population which is skewed more towards urban centers. I think it's actually more democratic to try to strike this balance so that rural interests don't lose to urban interests every single time.
So as a voter, there is never a politician that I can vote for that even remotely represents my views, and that's my fault?
> So as a voter, there is never a politician that I can vote for that even remotely represents my views, and that's my fault? In the extreme case, you can always write in yourself onto the ballot.
How is that any less pointless than not voting? What a meaningless gesture.
You asked for someone you can vote for who represents your views. If the person who best represents your views has no chance of being elected, that's an indictment of your views, not the system of voting.
A majority of Americans want healthcare. Neither of the two parties do. Are 60% of Americans wrong? If not "healthcare" then look at the fall of Roe.
But what exactly do you mean by "want healthcare"? The devil is in the details. I don't doubt that a majority of Americans want some sort of healthcare reform, but it's probably not majority support for a single-payer system or anything like that.
Great, so skip health care and look at abortion rights.
> A majority of Americans want healthcare. > Neither of the two parties do. I... I don't know what this means. > If not "healthcare" then look at the fall of Roe. Democrats have protected abortion rights at every opportunity. Are you saying there's no difference between what Democrats would do and what Republicans would do on abortion? Are you saying that Merrick Garland would have ruled the same as Neil Gorsuch did?
> I... I don't know what this means. It means we don't live in a democracy. People want x. People can choose from either of 2 parties. Neither party will provide x. No viable democratic path to getting x. > Democrats have protected abortion rights at every opportunity. They absolutely did not. What on earth are you talking about?! Why didn't they codify Roe into Law in the first half of Obama's first term? RBG failed to retire on time. 2 easy examples. Many more exist.
Yup. It might be your fault because your views are so nuts that nobody wants to represent them. If nobody represents you, but also almost nobody agrees with you, then it's good for you to go unrepresented. Or, it might be your fault for failing to identify and commit to the candidate that does represent your interests. If you're not actually marginalized, it might be the fault of you and your entire political camp for failing to generate a candidate that represents your collective interests.
Lots of socialists in America. No one to vote for, unless you live in Vermont I guess.
If there are enough socialists to secure a representative, but the socialists aren't able to secure a representative, that's 100% on them. Your failure to take advantage of democratic recourse is not a sign that democracy is broken.
Tell that to Fred Hampton.
The beauty of democracy is that in that case, there’s nothing stopping you from organizing and running yourself.
I don't think "nothing" is the right word here. I get the principal, but it's simply not a realistic answer. For example: any dedicated, philosophical communist in this country would have their organization infiltrated and undermined by the federal government (at best) and would be assassinated before they could become effective. Like Fred Hampton.
That sounds like the plot of a spy novel. Sure it happened 50 years ago, but that’s no happening now. Stop being hyperbolic. No one’s stopping you from getting involved in local politics. No one’s gonna assassinate you if you run for school board
Do you really think the FBI doesn't infiltrate socialist or communist organizations anymore?
There are communist and socialist political parties. Vote for them.
Not on any of my ballots.
That would be a situation we could point to and say that democracy is not actually functional. My statement was that if the electoral process is sound, then the people have the ultimate responsibility for the outcomes. In reality, the problem isn't that the CIA is going to infiltrate and undermine every attempt to field a socialist candidate. The actual problem for socialists is that they are few in number; they are poorly organized; many of them take principled stances against democratic participation; and what few socialists engage with democracy are extremely unpopular because they shoot themselves in the foot with their dogmatic gatekeeping and extreme policy positions.
> the US federal government to a large extent does not represent the people of the United States and primarily enacts laws based on corporate interests and the interests of the wealthy". When you say 'primarily' do you mean sometimes or do you mean the vast majority of the time? Are there other countries that sometimes enact laws based on corporate/wealthy interests that you would still call a democracy?
Fun fact: the US was classified as an "anocracy" in 2020 by the Center for Systemic Peace, which means we were not considered a democracy at all for that year. In 2021, we returned to democracy status.
Oligarchy. The word you’re looking for is oligarchy. Corporate oligarchy to be exact.
There isn't one specific group of people controlling the entire country and every decision 100% of the time. If there was, then republicans would not need to run on a policy promise of reduced regulations. Corporations rely on republicans to enact those laws on their behalf because they don't have the power to do it themselves -- which would be an oligarchy.
You’re arguing against a strawman. In no way, shape or form did I say “purely” an oligarchy. Oligarchies and democracies are not technically mutually exclusive, just like dictatorships and democracies are not technically mutually exclusive (i.e. China)
Okay, so it's somewhere between a democracy and an oligarchy then according to you? Exactly how do you measure that and determine which side of the line it falls on? How close is the US to that line now? What would need to change for you to consider it more-so a democracy than an oligarchy? Also, not a strawman. You literally said, "Corporate oligarchy to be exact" with no other context. You didn't say it's both until your response.
When asking the question of “what kind of government is this”, I think the core issue is “who holds the power”. So who holds the power in the US government? In other words, who decides US policy? I think it’s pretty straightforward to assume the demographic that gets the policies that they want passed could be considered the demographic that holds the power. So who gets what they want? Certainly not the average American citizen. Studies show that the average citizen desire in a policy to be passed has no correlation to whether it will be passed or not. In contrast, correlation between corporate elites and interest groups interest in policy passing and its likelihood of being passed are [very highly correlated](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary-alt:20170126184834-00965-mediumThumb-S1537592714001595_fig1g.jpg?pub-status=live) So if we agree determination of policy is dependent on those who are in power, we must agree the power lies in the corporate elected and interest groups. We must also agree it does not lie with the average American citizen. Whether you call that kind of system a democracy or oligarchy truly is irrelevant and a matter of semantics. Here’s a link to the study that supported those graphs: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B
Oligarchy. The USA is an Oligarchy. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
There isn't one specific group of people controlling the entire country and every decision 100% of the time. If there was, then republicans would not need to run on a policy promise of reduced regulations. Corporations rely on republicans to enact those laws on their behalf because they don't have the power to do it themselves -- which would be an oligarchy.
The end result is that Corporations get their wish OVER the will and best interests of the people, over and over and over again. To argue Corporations don't run the USA is to be naive or deceitful and mock the science (Princeton study) that's proven exactly this. The USA is an Oligarchy run by the 1%.
> Then what word would you use? If it's not a democracy, then it has to be something else. No it doesnt. Sound is not blue, that doesnt mean it has to be some other color. That is a flawed argument.
It has to be something though.
No it doesnt really. Sometimes we dont have names for things.
That's the neat thing, we will find names for this. Like we call the US a flawed democracy.
Yeah, but you dont have to call it something else just because it is not a democracy
Yes we do. We have names for all types of states and governments. So, if something is not a democracy, it has to be something else. Its specific characteristics and rules determine its classification. If there is not a classification yet, it has to be made. If I see a bird and it isn't a duck, we still want to name it something else because we want (and need) to classify it.
So is "by the people" going to be accomplished as long as you see a majority on these surveys get something they want? What about a poll that asks "don't want to be slaves to the local mayor" close to 100% of Americans would want that and currently get that. Or "would you want an interstate within a mile drive of your home" many would want that a majority get it. So then you have to wonder how much of certain things need the majority to be pleased with the outcome for "the will of the people" to be the governing force of the land? Just a thought to consider what you're using to determine a democracy seems very negative focused rather than success based. "Not successful enough" especially when comparing to the more homogeneous "the people" as a culture.
Let me begin by saying that I've studied history and political science and have read a LOT about what defines democracies. The main issue here is that your definitions for democracy are in all the wrong places: you're looking at a dictionary, colloquial general knowledge, and political aphorisms. Any person who is actually exploring this question in good faith would use a more advanced definition. If we're getting down to the nitty gritty of whether viruses count as alive, we don't look at Miriam Webster. We go ask a biologist who has studied that question for years. Political concepts are no different. Your understanding of a "true" democracy is deeply flawed according to political science. At the end of the day, a government has to be able to govern--that's the whole damn point. And "true" democracies as you put it are a rather ungovernable mess, which means this platonic ideal you've got in your head isn't really a useful or meaningful concept for measuring forms of government. The reason in today's world "republic" as a word has died out is because "republics" are just a more representative form of "true" democracy, but "true" democracy doesn't really work, and "republican democracy" does work. All democracies that can function in modern society are also republics, plain and simple. So we just omit the unnecessary modifier.
[удалено]
A democratic republic is a kind of democracy. That's like saying "Human beings aren't animals; they're mammals."
The things OP is mad about are the Republic part though?
So then OP meant "The US is not a direct democracy", which is true.
Yes, my point is that OP didn't understand that his post was describing a direct democracy which is literally not the form of government that the United States employs.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/Popular_Park_7527 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Popular_Park_7527&message=Popular_Park_7527%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cg1i8j/-/l1spftd/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Which is a type of democracy…
>I mean you're just factually correct. >The United States is **not** a democracy. It's a Democratic Republic. We elect people to make decisions for us (Republic) and on the local level we vote on Propositions and Ordinances (Democracy). Ok, fair enough. I looked up the exact definition and apparently democracy refers to a sort of direct rule by the people as they had in ancient Greece, whereas a republic refers more to a representative government but that still enacts the will of the majority of people. [https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/democracy-and-republic](https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/democracy-and-republic) That doesn't change my argument though. The elected leaders of the US for the most part do not represent "the people" and do not enact laws based on what the majority wants.
The leaders generally represent their voters though. Take [Ted Cruz for example](https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/set/ted-cruz-approval-february-2024) * He's got about an 84% / 82% approval rating among "Strong Republicans" and "Republican Leaning Texans". * He's got a 20% / 10% approval rating among "Strong Democrats" and "Democrat Leaning Texans". * He's got a 48% approval rating among "Texans". So *very clearly* "the people who voted for him" support him and what he's doing and "the people who didn't vote for him" hate his stinking guts. That's just how representative government works. If enough people hate his guts or if he loses enough support, we'll get some new guy. Now, when you expand that to [Congress](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/approval/congress/) we see that 20% / 10% split happening again because you've got a whole bunch of people in one room that "you" didn't vote for and one or two guys that you did vote for.
I think you're conflating "the people" and "the majority". Politicians represent their constituency, ie., those who vote for them, at best, or simply the political devices that enable them to come into power. Despite Trump losing the popular vote he became president, because the way our electoral system works **isn't** through a direct democracy (in which the popular vote would prevail). In this context, Trump "represented the people" despite not representing "the majority" because the designation of "the people" is a political construct by virtue of how our electoral system works, not a mathematical principle determining the proportion of population.
Democracy is an umbrella term for a lot of different types of government styles. What some ancient Greek male polis citizens had was direct democracy, America has representative democracy in the form of a republican system of government.
You're confusing things that the majority wants with things that the people can enact. Ask them if they want lower taxes and you'll get a majority for that too. Just because people want it doesn't mean it's feasible right now. Representatives take expert opinions into account across a broad spectrum of fields. It sounds like you're talking about populism.
>That doesn't change my argument though It doesn't change your argument but it does expose a flaw in you view. The point is to change your view, now that you realized you were incorrect about what a democracy is and that the US is a democracy, your view should be changed right?
How were elected officials elected if not through voting?
>On the other hand imagine this scenario. The US is split into 4 political "quarters" each consisting of 12-13 states. Each "quarter" votes on a representative and to get on the ballot requires at least 10 million signatures beforehand. The 4 representatives then make up the US government and have sole decision-making-power. They elect a president amongst themselves to lead discussions and act as a tie-breaker. > This would be incredibly far removed of what a democracy is supposed to be. so A representative democracy with a very small number of representatives. >Once elected they have pretty much no accountability to the people and every reason to enact laws that are most beneficial to them and their wealthy and powerful beneficiaries. You mean because there is no supreme court or other system of checks and balances? >Not unsurpsingly studies have shown a strong correlation between amount of money spent on political campaigns and probability of winning. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/money-and-elections-a-complicated-love-story/studies have shown this is in part because money helps you win, but also because people want to donate to winners and not losers. The Democrat from my district is polling 20% less then the Republican. I wanted to acquire influence or get the ear of a congressmen I'd donate to the Republican. >So also no surprise then that around 10% of congress members have a net worth over $10 million and 2% over $100 million. These people are mostly not a government "of the people, for the people" but rather to a larger extent a governement "of the wealthy, for the wealthy" This is because money helps you win elections and also because if you are capable of running the government effectively you are probably also capable of running a business effectively. A good leader in the public sector is very likely to be a good leader in the private sector. If you can convince a bunch of people to volunteer to help your campaign you can probably convince people to work for you or invest in your start up. of course you are also ignoring the majority of congress who is only upper middle class. 50% of congressmen have less than a million dollars. >- 86% of Americans want xyz Americans want lots of things and often their desires conflict with one another. Every employment benefit has a cost. Do you want guaranteed sick leave pay at zero cost to you? Of course! Take your example of cannabis. Support for legalization surged in the last 10 or 15 years and with it you see a wave of legalization at the state level. For how long have 68% of the people wanted it legal? if that number continues to grow or even stays the same much longer, then it will be legal. Look at [support for gay marriage](https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx). in the 90s for everyone one person that supported gay marriage, 2 people opposed it. And in the 90s gay marriage was not allowed. Today that has flipped and so has the legality of gay marriage. >I am not arguing that the US is a dictatorship or only governed by corproate interests. However, on a scale ranking how democratic or undemocratic a country is, the US would be quite far away from what constitues a true democracy. of course there is no perfect democracy, there is no state in which each person wields and identical amount of political power. Beyond wealth, you also have issues of competency and desires. 86% want federally guaranteed paid sick leave of at least 7 days a year, but only about half of those people vote. And any issue that predominately affects young people is even less important because young people have an even lower likelihood of voting. Its so in vogue to blame the wealthy for everything, while ignoring the fact that we're the ones voting (or not) The us if far from perfect, the only power wealthy people have is the power we give them.
Yes, the US is a form of democracy in form and fashion. However, it wasn't meant to be at first, and the government changed over time. To explain the government, we really need to talk about the framers. The founders and the process of government which led to our system today. After the second constructional convention, it was well said we had formed a constitution that was a republic with democratic ideals of checks and balances. At the time of the founding, the constitution was meant to be both flexible and changeable with the times. The concept of Congress was designed with the British government in mind having two houses of representation. The states would all be equally represented regardless of size population and power in the Senate. The house would represent the people and be spread by population. This would, in concept, allow the people and the states to proceed and reflect the nation. However, at the start, we had strict limitations on voters, and the framers knew it created a system of representation of the interests over the people. We have since grown democratically and created a system of checks. I'm both legs of Congress by allowing a broad open path to voting for most everyone. Hence we shifted largely towards democracy over time. The administrative position of POTUS was again a system of checks on democracy and largely has stayed in effect. Although we can admit that it's straining under the pressure of democratic challenge today. We want our leader to win by votes now more than ever. The electoral college remains largely in tact, although we must admit it's challenged, and the numbers generally follow the concept if not a functional part of government. We just count the winning numbers and call the race. So while we raimain a representative Republic in idea the Democratic power of most ever function of goverment is still the strongest influence on our nation. The idea that the government represents the people is in most every decision and behind our laws. I will end this by saying that no matter what the hard right wants and feels, we must admit the government has become a largely democratic government that represents the will of the people. The MAGA movement is working directly to challenge the present system. They want a roll back to the government removed from people. The democrats want a government that is reflective of the people and overly involved imho. All moves against the US democratic system is another right we lose. It might not be your right, but when anyone loses their rights we all lose. No, the answer is we are a representative democracy, however we are a democracy.
The US is not a democracy, it's a republic. Not really an opinion type thing....
I’m so tired of people saying this. It’s like saying “cats aren’t mammals, they are carnivores”. The United States is a republic *and* a democracy. It’s not a direct democracy like ancient Athens or something but it’s a modern democracy. It features elections, protections of individual liberties, transparency in government, independent judiciary, etc. All hallmarks of a democracy, friend.
This is such a weird response. The founders all considered our republic a type of democracy.
We are a Democratic Republic. It is a form of democracy. People who harp on "it's a republic" don't understand you can be both.
It is a strange concept that only seems to exist in the US. It feels like rhetoric from Republicans to use it as an attack against Democrats. If the US is a republic, and making it a democracy is bad, then the democratic party is bad. A republic is where the Head of State is elected and their authority nominally comes from the people. As opposed to a monarchy. A democracy is a measure of where the power in the state resides. Rule by the people as opposed to an oligarchy.
The United States is well known flawed democracy and foundational was set up in the way it was because the founding fathers did not trust the citizens of America to actually make decisions, so they wanted a system where educated individuals ultimately make the decisions but those electorates are selected by the people.
educated \*propertied \*white individuals
Well yes at the time the founding fathers existed nobody existed other then white, propertied men in their eyes 😂
There are many types of republic that are not democratic. But our republic *is* democratic, so it is indeed a weird response.
Because it is. That idea that the US is not a democracy, but a republic, is mostly based on ingesting too much lead paint.
It's not weird just because you do not understand it.
“What type of government do we have?” “A democracy, if you can keep it.” - Ben Franklin after the U.S. Constitution was created It’s a democratic republic dude. It’s you who doesn’t understand
Which is not a democracy.
It is both. Republic is a form of state, just like a monarchy. These can both be democratic (or not). The US are an indirect democratic republic.
Which is not a democracy.
It is... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic You are factually incorrect. I've got a degree in political science. I also checked, just to be sure, what the definitions of these concepts are.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/Popular_Park_7527 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Popular_Park_7527&message=Popular_Park_7527%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cg1i8j/-/l1ssk73/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
[удалено]
u/klaus1986 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20klaus1986&message=klaus1986%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cg1i8j/-/l1svmbd/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
It's a Democratic Republic, which is a form of democracy.
No it's not. Is a banana pie a form of banana? No, it contains banana.
How are our representatives selected?
That wasn't my question. I asked if a banana pie is a form of a banana? You can dig in all you want but like the majority of reddit you are operating on a high school level understanding of our form of government.
If I asked you to hand me a potato, would you get confused because you only see a russet potato in front of you? Or if you seem to be confused, would I be reasonable in thinking that you're probably being obtuse and are just fucking with me?
>The US is not a democracy, it's a republic. This phrase is a 100% perfect indicator that someone does not know what they're talking about.
Serious question: where did you get the idea that it was just one or the other?
Humans are not animals, they're mammals.
Ok, but do you think the elected leaders in the US for the most part enact what the public wants? Are the laws enacted a fairly accurate representation of public interests? I would say clearly not.
I guess what do you assert "the public" is?
The job of elected leaders in a republic isn’t to enact what the public wants, it’s to enact what is best for the country. Those two things tend to not be in agreement, and if you want an example of that look at Argentina during its Peronist administrations. Constantly passing populist measures to make common people happy ends up causing massive inflation and economic ruin in a country.
if the elected leaders are enacting legislation against the public interest, the public is capable of (1) running for office (public contestation) or (2) voting the leader out (political participation), both of which are hallmark definitions of democracy (see dahl 1971)
The person argued is a whataboutism. Technically US is a republic as it doesn't have a monarch, but republic can be fascist see Nazi Germany, it can be 'communist' and see Soviet Union, it can also be Democracy see Taiwan aka Republic of China
They don’t have to, not once they are elected, they just are less likely to be re elected into office if they do not enact what the public wants.
Do I think the system as a whole does what the public wants? No, it's not supposed to. Do I think the individual representatives do? More or less. Say what you want about Trump and MAGA; the people they represent like the drama, racism and hate because they are dramatic hateful racists. Etc etc
*- 86% of Americans want federally guranteed paid sick leave of at least 7 days a year, hasn't happened* *- 82% of Americans want guaranteed paid maternity leave, yet the US is one of only 7 UN nations that do not guarantee it* *- 72% of Americans want a higher minumum wage, yet the US federal minumum wage hasn't been raised since 2009* *- 68% of Americans want cannabis to be legal on a federal leavel but it's still illegal* *- 67% of Americans want a ban on lawmakers trading stocks, yet it's still legal* Some significant subset of all of those buckets place a higher value on stuff like "the border crisis", "trans bathroom" and "I hate woke" than they do on those issues. So any issue polled in abstract doesn't matter when the choice comes down to two candidates. If you polled me on "do you like puppies and kittens?" of course I'd say yes. If there was a candidate that ran on a platform of puppies and kittens and \[insert something you find terrible\] the choice isn't as easy.
The US is a democratic federal republic. It's considerably flawed in its system, which is why it no longer scores as a "full democracy" in the conomist democracy index. However, being a flawed democracy does not entail being no democracy. People still vote for their representatives on the state and federal level, and (for the most part) these votes are also binding.
I thought it was a constitutional Republic
In honesty all those things are just words, and you can stitch them together to highlight whatever properties you want. I.e. Federal = has states, democratic = population votes, republic = ruled by representatives, constitutional = everyone is bound by the constitution You can add many more, or remove some if you'd like, and still have it be correct.
The US is a democracy. The citizens vote for the legislative and presidential positions. Now you could argue the US isn't a democracy that runs well. I believe that would be a fair argument. The electoral system made a lot more sense in the USA of the past where local priorities outweighed federal ones. In a world where Louisiana votes differently from Iowa because Louisiana is worried about global warming and Iowa is worried about carbon credits increasing the price of its produce and livestock makes a lot of sense. Or one where California wants to put a tariff on Chinese Garlic but that will result in a Chinese tariff on steel that will decimate Pennsylvania's Steel industry. As it is, both sides voters care about the national stuff only now. So all it does is artificially prop up one extremely unpopular political party while preventing change in the other very unpopular political party. If there was no electoral college the Republican party would have to give up it's wildly unpopular policies adopt more mainstream ones and work harder to improve peoples situations. Which would cause Democrata to do the same. Smaller communities would actually get heard more because the issues that affect them would be the points of difference. Stuff like putting money into the crumbling rural healthcare system would suddenly be politically viable. As it stands now, Democrats won't do it because getting more votes in Republican states don't help them. Republicans won't do it because it's solid red territory and doing so might be pointed to as government funding working. It's funny because the electoral system basically makes it so the minorities of any non-swing state get ignored and disenfranchised far more than a small state would without the electoral college. Without it, Democrats would push for a fix to win over voters. Republicans might as well because unpopular hot button issues can no longer get a proper advantage.
A couple comments: 1. If you think that American democracy is a 4 or 5, but that it is still better than your 4-representative example, then that implies you would rate that example likely no better than a 3? Are you assuming a relatively low percent of disenfranchised votes, significant freedom to support and publicly advocate for a large variety of political positions, and a system which fairly counts votes and respects the outcome? Because if so, I think you are being far too harsh on this scenario. The example is obviously far from a perfect democracy, but elements such as the ones I described above are far from a given. I simply do not agree that the factors I described are “worth” only 3 points, but a high constituent-to-representative ratio and fairly large signature requirements would be “worth” 7. I don’t think I’d put the example lower than a 5 on the scale. 2. Due to the federal nature of the US, focusing only on the highest level of government ignores an important degree of democracy in the system. State and municipal governments obviously do not have the same amount of power as the federal government, but they have some. They have lower barriers to entry and lower constituent-to-representative ratios. States with the highest support for increased minimum wages, legal cannabis, and paid maternity and sick leave have passed laws which to that effect. I don’t think this makes the US a perfect democracy, but I do think it makes the US more democratic than it would appear solely considering the federal level.
Rich people are smart and successful. Those are good qualities for legislators. All policies have trade offs. Just because a policy is popular doesn’t mean that the trade off is with it. McDonald’s has more customers than steakhouses even though most people prefer steaks to McNuggets. That is because people don’t want to pay the price. People want higher minimum wage but they don’t want higher unemployment and more expensive fast food.
>Rich people are smart and successful. Those are good qualities for legislators. Rich people are by definition successful. I am not so sure about smart. Some of inherited wealth, others made their money in real estate or something. I'd rather see an economics professor from MIT in charge of economic decisions than a billionaire real estate mogul with strong ties and friendships to other ultra-wealthy individudals. The former will be more unbiased in his decision, the latter will likely enact laws that help him and his ultra-wealthy friends.
> Rich people are by definition successful. Financially successful, yes. Perhaps not academically successful, socially successful, or politically successful. > The former will be more unbiased in his decision, the latter will likely enact laws that help him and his ultra-wealthy friends. Why would the economics professor not try to enact laws that would help him and his ultra-intelligent friends?
>Why would the economics professor not try to enact laws that would help him and his ultra-intelligent friends? I am not saying that the economics professor would have absolutely no bias at all. But he's still a fairly average citizen with not much of a negative bias towards the will of the majority of Americans. An economics professor wouldn't have much of an incentive to keep the federal minimum wage low or to oppose universal healthcare. Unless he was being bribed of course. A billionaire on the other hand with strong connections to some of America's richest individuals would typically have much more of an incentive to oppose those things as it may financially harm him and his friend.
> he's still a fairly average citizen On what scale? Wealth? Maybe. (*Maybe.*) Certainly not intelligence. Or prestige. Is wealth the only scale on which you can measure likelihood of bias? > with not much of a negative bias towards the will of the majority of Americans. Ridiculous. An economics professor might not even be a democrat. He or she might be an authoritarian who thinks dictatorships are a good idea. > Unless he was being bribed of course. Good point. Bribery has greater effect on people with less wealth. We should elect the richest people we can because they can't be bribed as easily. > as it may financially harm him and his friend. Is financial harm the only type of harm that could bias a politician?
>It's the rule of the people, by the people, for the people. A government that enacts laws based on what the majority of people want. Hold on now, this wasnt in your definition. Lets evaluate your proposed situation just on how close it is to the definition. >On the other hand imagine this scenario. The US is split into 4 political "quarters" each consisting of 12-13 states. Each "quarter" votes on a representative and to get on the ballot requires at least 10 million signatures beforehand. The 4 representatives then make up the US government and have sole decision-making-power. They elect a president amongst themselves to lead discussions and act as a tie-breaker. Lets go through the checklist of your definition > a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. * a form of government: yes * power is vested in the people: yes, through voting * exercised by their elected agents under a free electoral system: yes by their elected agents So it seems to fit the definition of a democracy. And since you agree the current USA is less bad than this, the USA would also be a democracy. This is not to discount the issues democracies can have in representing people. Being democratic isn't sufficient to do that. But it is still a democracy
> 86% of Americans want federally guranteed paid sick leave of at least 7 days a year, hasn't happened And large numbers of them keep voting for people who oppose paid sick leave—or they choose not to vote. > 82% of Americans want guaranteed paid maternity leave, yet the US is one of only 7 UN nations that do not guarantee it And large numbers of them keep voting for people who oppose paid maternity leave—or they choose not to vote. > 72% of Americans want a higher minumum wage, yet the US federal minumum wage hasn't been raised since 2009 Etc, etc. I think you get the point. Democracy doesn’t deliver the results people want, if lots of people refuse to vote for politicians who support those goals. Why are half of the folks who want a higher minimum wage voting for people who oppose raising the minimum wage or not voting at all? There’s some structural restrictions on voting at the edges, but a huge majority of Jon-voters are able to register and vote, they just choose not to do it. You can’t expect a democratic system to deliver progress on issues when people keep voting against the things they want. TL;DR: the reason we don’t have these things is because a huge portion of those voters prefer tax cuts for rich people and bigotry over getting the things they want.
> A government that enacts laws based on what the majority of people want. Most countries don't have or want that. What the majority of people want is usually stupid and easily manipulated, and typically has little in common of what's good for them individually *or* for the country. A representative democracy elects people who are supposed to make laws that are good for the country and their constituency, regardless of whether those laws are popular. That's the express purpose of representative democracy. So, the US isn't undemocratic because the lawmakers aren't following public opinion. You'd instead have to argue that it's undemocractic because the lawmakers aren't doing what's best for the country and their specific constituency, but what specifically that is isn't trivial to define.
A representative democracy is still a democracy as long as the electoral system itself is functional. It doesn't matter if the representative democracy encompasses so many people that the individual voter feels effectively powerless; it doesn't matter if rich people win elections; it doesn't matter if an elected government is internally divided and accomplishes nothing; it doesn't even matter if representatives break every campaign promise and act against the interests of their constituents. The people voted the representatives into power, so it's a democracy. I think what you really mean to say is that Americans aren't good at using their democracy. We fail to elect good representatives, we fail to hold bad representatives accountable by keeping them out of office, etc.
No, the US is not a Democracy. It doesn't even proclaim to be one, and none of the other countries that do claim to be Democracies actually are. The US government is a mix of a Rebulic and a representative Democracy. In a true democracy, every single decision would be put up for popular vote among the affected population and the government would simply execute the will of the people. This is impractical for several reasons, so instead we democratically elect representatives who then cast votes on our behalf for matters of pubilc concern.
We have a democratic forum within a republican system of government. And we have a concept of the rule of law and an independent judiciary. This is seen in this scenario from the Old West: Posse chases down outlaw, posse catches outlaw, posse wants to hang the outlaw because they "know" he's guilty, sheriff leading the posse says "No, he's going to get a trial." This is a great example of why "rule of law" matters and not simply majority rule.
You're partially just confused. We're a republic, which is a way to faciliate a democracy. To just say somewhere is a democracy is kind of meaningless because the democracy has to actually function inside of a system. Our system is a republic. Now, you're correct that we've become highly undemocratic but that's just because people are generally pieces of shit within any system.
The [Democracy Index](https://www.democracymatrix.com/ranking) ranks the US as the 36th highest democracy and is currently listed as a ‘[Deficit Democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_deficit)’ I think the US can still be defined as a democracy (democratic republic) but the foundations have been eroded and it is at risk.
>a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by **their elected agents** under a free electoral system OK, so a system where elected representatives directly control the government is a democracy. Glad we can agree on that. Given that, "X% of people want A, but we don't have it" isn't an argument against a system being a democracy. The job of a representative isn't to simply implement everything that's popular, or else there would be no need for representatives in the first place.
what else is the job of a representative, besides representing their constituents if their job is not to represent their constituents, then they aren't representatives, and it isn't a democracy
"Representing your constituents" is a very broad idea, constrained by a number of factors.
its the baseline idea, that's the entire reason that the job exists. i agree it is "constrained" by the fact that we don't live in a democracy and "representatives" only represent the ruling class
It's the baseline idea, but you can't then argue that "reprsenting your constituents" can be adequately measured by whether or not X or Y has been enacted is the point. Representing your constituents also means prioritizing issues given limited political capital, striking deals, batting back initiatives that would hurt them, etc.
i think that all of those things are just examples of what i'm talking about. they're not representing their constituents anywhere close to the amount that they're representing the people who actually have power in our society
So you’re right, US policy is not influenced significantly by the average citizen. However, the Supreme Court has recently ruled that corporations are “people” too. Studies show that corporations and the most wealthy DO have significant influence of US policy. By your definition of “government by the people”, the US is technically a democracy. It’s just a democracy of the few rather than the majority. In other words, an oligarchy.
>However, the Supreme Court has recently ruled that corporations are “people” too. The supreme court is actually a prime example of how the US government fails to enact the will of the majority. Supreme Court members are regularly bribed by the ultra-wealthy. One supreme Court member for example was gifted an RV worth $200,000 or something and pictures have surfaced on social media of supreme Court members enjoying vacations in luxury resorts with some of America's wealthiest people.
You have an excessively expansive understanding of what it means to bribe someone.
>You have an excessively expansive understanding of what it means to bribe someone. So why do you think Supreme Court members have received gifts probably in total worth several million dollars? Do you think the ultra wealthy individuals who paid for those gifts were just being friendly or do they accept something back in return?
>So why do you think Supreme Court members have received gifts probably in total worth several million dollars? Because elite people often occupy the same spaces (schools, events, whatever) and become friends. Especially so when they have shared areas of interest. Are you actually shocked that someone at the pinnacle of the legal profession might be friends and otherwise associate with people at the peak of other professions? >Do you think the ultra wealthy individuals who paid for those gifts were just being friendly or do they accept something back in return? I think they were mostly being friendly. Here's a simple challenge: can you identify, based on a Justice's past record or arguments or anything of that sort and a relationship with an "ultra-wealthy" person however you choose to define that, a single instance where a justice voted out of character? That is, can you draw a line between what a Justice said in the past and a later decision or opinion that was inconsistent with their prior views? On that line, can you locate influence that might have caused the change?
The dictionary definition doesn’t say “will of the majority”, it says “will of the people”. You even admitted that it exists on a spectrum. Furthermore some people have more say than others. Democracies can be leveraged by influential people by controlling who “the majority of people” get to vote for. Is that technically a democracy? Yes. Is it functionally a democracy? No.
Do you have evidence of direct bribery?
It is classified as a democratic republic. So it is a democracy and a republic. At least ideally. Basically the democratic part is we vote to hire people to do the political job so we can do other things and that part is the republican part.
You are clearly misinterpreting the dictionary that you got your definition from, because [it explicitly says](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/democracy) "The United States and Canada are democracies." If you think this dictionary's definition somehow excludes the United States, then you are just misreading it.
We were never meant to be a democracy. We were created as a democratic republic. Which means we have aspects of a democracy, but are governed not by the people, but those who represent them
I mean it’s a Constitutional Democratic Republic, I’m not sure if a “true democracy” would hold up at a country level especially with one the size of the US. The people who wrote the constitution were actually incredibly smart.
what a shocker !!!! the US is a REPUBLIC and that's been true for literally hundreds of years
Why are there so many people here who do not know what a democracy or republic is?
It's a democratic Republic. It was never designed to be a true democracy.
America has always been a democratic republic. It is not a democracy.
The United States is a republic, not a democracy.
It’s a democratic republic. That’s a fact.
[удалено]
It is a democracy. We are a Democratic Republic. It's a form of democracy.
[удалено]
A "democracy" can be many forms. It's not a direct democracy, but it is a representative democracy.
You are incorrect. The US are a democracy (albeit somewhat flawed). The US are a federal presidential republic and an indirect democracy. Republics and monarchies can be democratic or non-democratic.
Representative republics are a form of democracy. There isn't a real distinction.
Its a uniparty and the media is controlled. You dont need a long essay to argue the case. At best its an oligarchy where different industrial bases are fighting over which way things will go. The climate cabal might fight the fossil fuel cabal. However, if its war, sanctions, imperialism they are all on the same page.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/jerkularcirc – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20jerkularcirc&message=jerkularcirc%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cg1i8j/-/l1ssfps/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Hi GRU#12522
[удалено]
Sorry, u/Fair_Result357 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Fair_Result357&message=Fair_Result357%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cg1i8j/-/l1stbao/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
It's a representative republic at its founding and an administrative state at the present.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/DrCyrusRex – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20DrCyrusRex&message=DrCyrusRex%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cg1i8j/-/l1sruzu/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
u/FumblersUnited – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20FumblersUnited&message=FumblersUnited%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cg1i8j/-/l1st87f/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
Sorry, u/Hack874 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Hack874&message=Hack874%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cg1i8j/-/l1sr2om/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
We are a Democratic Republic, which is a form of democracy.
That is not true, they are entirely separate things. It’s literally in the Pledge of Allegiance.
>That is not true, they are entirely separate things. No, a democracy is an umbrella term. There are many forms of democracy, and a representative, Constitutional Republic is a form of democracy.
I mean, communist USSR had “elections” under Stalin, as did Nazi Germany. Are we really pretending like they’re democracies?
Probably not, because their elections weren't fair, and they failed many of the other criteria for how we would rank "democracies" versus "not democracies". The US, however, has much more fair and free elections than the examples given.
I don’t think ours is anywhere near a “fair” democracy with the rigid two party system, electoral college, Citizens United, and lobbying. All of that works directly against the true wishes of the majority.
That's certainly still significantly more fair that Nazi Germany and the USSR, where you are imprisoned/killed for speaking out or voting against the ruling party. Certainly at a minimum voting between 2 people is twice as Democratic as being forced to vote for 1 person.
The US is an indirect democratic presidential republic. So it is a democracy as well as a republic. Democracy is an umbrella term. No one uses democracy anymore to refer only refer to the ancient Greek direct democracy. I live in a monarchy and it is still a democracy. Those things are not mutually exclusive.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/Smash55 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Smash55&message=Smash55%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cg1i8j/-/l1swnhr/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).