Is the United States of America a Republic or a Democracy...

[Yonivore]

...and, do you even know the difference?

Discuss.

[jalbre6]

Hmmm...when we pledge allegiance it's to a republic. In a republic, we can either act on a matter individually or via representatives. The representatives work for the people, not the government, and we entrust them to perform or behalf.

In a democracy, every matter of importance (possibly every matter, period) dealing with the country is subject to vote by the entire citizen population.

A Republic is like a Cliff Notes version of a Democracy...all the good parts are there and it's easier to operate.

[MannyIsGod]

More importantly, have we outgrown an age where states rights should be valued less?

Are we at a stage where Deleware having the same say in the Senate as California is not a good idea?

I think it's time people counted evenly, and not more if they happen to live in a certain state.

[NeoConIV]

I link, you decide:

Republic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

Democracy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

[Yonivore]

More importantly, have we outgrown an age where states rights should be valued less?

No. States rights are paramount to a Republican form of government and are what keep us from becoming what we despised when we created this Republic.

Are we at a stage where Deleware having the same say in the Senate as California is not a good idea?

Again, no. But, the 17th amendment to the Cons ution has made that a moot question anyway with Senators being elected by popular vote instead of being chosen by the respective State Legislatures...as was originally intended by the founders of the Republic and the framers of the Cons ution.

I think it's time people counted evenly, and not more if they happen to live in a certain state.

Then, in the words of John Adams, you are ready for national suicide.

So what's the difference between republican and democratic forms of government? John Adams captured the essence of the difference when he said, "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." Nothing in our Cons ution suggests that government is a grantor of rights. Instead, government is a protector of rights.

To be sure, political “Republicans,” the party – not the ideologues – are as bad as the political “Democrats,” again, the party – not the ideologues – at erroneously referring to our cons uted form of government as a democracy and, for constantly extolling the virtues of a democratic form of government.

Well campers, that wasn’t the vision of the founders. They saw democracy as another form of tyranny. If we’ve become a democracy, the founders would be deeply disappointed by our betrayal of their vision for this nation. The founders intended, and laid out the ground rules, for our nation to be a republic.

The word democracy appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Cons ution -- two most fundamental do ents of our nation. Instead of a democracy, the Cons ution's Article IV, Section 4, guarantees "…to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” Ask yourself: “Does our pledge of allegiance to the flag say to ‘…the democracy for which it stands,’ or does it say to ‘…the republic for which it stands?’”

In recognition that it's Congress that poses the greatest threat to our liberties, the framers used negative phrases against Congress throughout the Cons ution such as: “shall not abridge, infringe, deny, disparage,” and “shall not be violated,” nor “be denied.” In a republican form of government, there is rule of law. All citizens, including government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government power is limited and decentralized through a system of checks and balances. Government intervenes in civil society to protect its citizens against force and fraud but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange.

Contrast the framers' vision of a republic with that of a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws do not represent reason. They represent power. The restraint is upon the individual instead of government. Unlike that envisioned under a republican form of government, rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government.

How about a few quotations demonstrating the disdain our founders held for democracy? James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10: In a pure democracy, "…there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual." At the 1787 Cons utional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, "... that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy." John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Chief Justice John Marshall observed, "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos." In a word or two, the founders knew that a democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny the colonies suffered under King George III.

The framers gave us a Cons ution that is chocked full of undemocratic mechanisms. One that has come in for recent criticism and calls for its elimination is the Electoral College. In their wisdom, the framers gave us the Electoral College so that in presidential elections large, heavily populated states couldn't democratically run roughshod over small, sparsely populated states.

So, do Americans share the republican values laid out by our founders, and is it simply a matter of our being unschooled about the differences between a republic and a democracy? Or, is it a matter of preference and we now want the kind of tyranny feared by the founders where Congress can do anything it can muster a majority vote to do?

I fear it's the latter and, Manny, you’re exhibit A.

[MannyIsGod]

Ha!

You and your canned response to whoever was the first to come in and reply to this thread, nice.

The fact remains that a Senator from a smaller state has a greater say so than one from a more populous state. That isn't equality.

The article/post above makes an assumption in saying that simply by eliminating the electoral college we would somehow allow the more populated sates to "ride roughshod " over less populated states.

This simply ignores the fact that state governments have nothing to do with the electoral college. Giving every citizen an equal say in the selection of our president is in no way going to mean that California will somehow have the ability to push Montana around, because Californians have no say so what so ever in Montana.

Give me examples on how removing the Electoral College would hurt smaller states Oh Educated One.