Not to disagree with you but it might also nice to nuance that statement. Being a democracy isn't an either/or proposition. It's more of a continuum.
There are some internationally recognized standards what constitutes a democracy, and the USA fits some and not others. For example, the USA wouldn't meet the criteria for democracy to be considered for EU membership, in the unlikely event it would apply for that.
The main sticking point is that it practices capital punishment, together with countries such as People's Republic of China and a handful of African countries. Intralegal execution of minors being especially problematic. Several treaties on international criminal law concerning war crimes is not recognized and its citizens are unlikely to ever be subject to the Geneva convention.
The second important point is the lack of an independent legal system. High ranking judges gets hand picked by politicians, in a very literal way. (Which is something that has also has happened in for example Poland. This is widely regarded as a loop hole in the EU democratic criteria. A country could not have been considered for membership under those conditions, but there is no jurisdictional power against reneging on that policy post membership. Subsidies gets frozen, but that's about it.)
The US is at best an "illiberal democracy"[1]. But it's probably worse than that. Effectively, the US has no opposition party, the ruling party being superficially divided into two nominal parties which agree on 90% of policy and which use their control over the electoral machinery to exclude opposition parties.
Recently, major changes of governmental policy that affect millions of people have been made by an unelected body of officials who have lifetime terms. You may have even seen it in the news.
Arguing otherwise is me not being a functioning democracy?
While I would love to take that on I am genuinely puzzled by what you mean. “No one can question American democracy because they don’t have a better one?” Sorry but if that’s it that’s a dumb take.
A republic is a form of democracy. This strange differentiation came about as a GOP talking point in the early 2000s. I'm amazed that it is still repeated 20 year later. Saying the US is not a democracy but a constitutional republic is like saying a car is not an automobile.
>> This strange differentiation came about as a GOP talking point in the early 2000s.
Actually no, it comes from far earlier in our history that that, GOP may have had it has a talking point not sure, and dont really care, but the GOP is not the origination of this
>Saying the US is not a democracy but a constitutional republic is like saying a car is not an automobile.
No, not all Republics are democratic, and not all Democracy's are republics.
The US has every very very limited elements that are democratic, and at our founding even less so then today. At the founding only the House was democratic everything else was not. IMO we need to go back to that, less democracy would be good
When I was growing up in the 80s, everyone knew the US republic was a form of democracy. Are you arguing that it isn't? I never heard the phrase, "The US isn't a democracy, it's a republic" until around 2000s; the first part being completely wrong, but the second part being right.
>A republic is a form of democracy. This strange differentiation came about as a GOP talking point in the early 2000s.
What? No, this is not a recent talking point, it's the core philosophical difference in this country since day 1. The names of the parties Republican & Democrat aren't just random words, they represent the philosophical differences in where the bulk of the power in government should rest (the republic being the system with input from the people, or the democracy being the direct will of the people).
Republicans generally believe direct democracy is dangerous and instead rely on the framework of the institutions of our Republic to act as guiderails preventing potential mob rule and other acts of capriciousness. The people get their say, within reason.
Democrats generally believe all power and decision making should come directly from the people, and the systems should be more fluid. They don't see them as guiderails they see them as unnecessary constraints on the people. The people get their say, and their will is done.
I would never argue that our politicians of each party believe in this fully, nor the voters for that matter. But this is a huge philosophical difference that predates the early 2000's by a couple hundred years. It's been a talking point since before our Constitution was drafted.
> The names of the parties Republican & Democrat aren't just random words, they represent the philosophical differences in where the bulk of the power in government should rest
No, they don't. Also, the two original parties were the Democratic-Republican Party of Jefferson, Madison, et al., and the Federalist Party of Hamilton, Adams, etc al.
Both, BTW, favored what is, I modern terms, a democratic republic and a representative democracy, though the Federalists initially favored a stronger central seat of power and the Democratic-Republicans favored a weaker central seat of power, though the bigger divide quickly became over foreign policy.
The Republicans weren't a major party until after the Federalist Party collapsed leaving a brief period of unstable one-party domination, then the D-Rs fractured, leaving the Democrats and Whigs in the Second Party system, then the Whigs later collapsed and the Republicans and the Democrats formed the Third Party system with the most critical initial issue being over not abstract form of government but slavery. While the identity of the two major parties has been the same since, their political alignment has changed several times; we’re now in what is generally regarded as the Sixth Party system.
Your post has the tone of disagreeing with what I said, yet never actually does.
The names of the parties change over the years, and the ideologies shift. But we have essentially always had one major party pushing to put more power directly into the hands of voters and another major party wanting to conserve the power in the established governmental frameworks.
The two current parties are no different in that regard. Democrats want to abolish the Electoral College and run government from Ballot propositions (direct democracy in action). Republicans are against those things and want to shift more power to the states of the Republic.
My understanding is that the Democrats want to leverage a strong federal government to various aims (welfare, social security, medicare, medicaid, regulation, etc) while the Republicans want a smaller federal government and give the power to the states. This divide is about power of the federal government vs power of the states, or the Jeffersonian / Hamiltonian divide.
You've shown examples of where the Democrats want more direct democracy, so there's that too. I don't know if this is a recent phenomenon or not. I've never known the Ds to make much about it either way until you mentioned it.
the US is a dictatorship disguised as a democracy..the dictators happen to be those with the most influence and $ which then they hand down generations..no 1 person has ever ruled the world, they are just the main face of the whole...both rep and dem are influenced by the same "shadow" entities..so it doesn't matter who wins from either side they all respond to the same people
>where the bulk of the power in government should rest
You are thinking federalism vs anti-federalism. That was Jefferson and Hamilton. The federalists won a long time ago, mainly through the interpretation of the commerce clause. Recent decisions by the SCOTUS is pulling back on that a little bit.
>Republicans generally believe direct democracy
Nowhere did I say the US was a direct democracy, I think that's what's tripping everyone up. I'm arguing against when people say the US is a republic and not a democracy. That is incorrect. If they had said direct democracy, I would agree with them. To say the US is a republic and not a democracy when every position of power in government was either elected, or appointed by someone who was elected, is incorrect. The democratic process is obvious.
>Democrats generally believe all power and decision making should come directly from the people, and the systems should be more fluid. They don't see them as guiderails they see them as unnecessary constraints on the people. The people get their say, and their will is done.
I don't see any evidence of this in modern politics. Which democrat has mentioned implementing a direct democracy?
Nope. At least not exclusively. The party's change over the years but we have essentially always had one party pushing for more direct democracy, and one party pulling against. A rose by any other name is still rose, but the philosophical idea of Republic government vs Democrat government is always there. And it's the key difference in the two parties.
>I don't see any evidence of this in modern politics. Which democrat has mentioned implementing a direct democracy?
The entire State of California is constantly riddled with ballot propositions, which is direct democracy in many case overturning the work done by their own representative legislature. And California is essentially a one party state so there is no one else to share the blame.
Federally, I can't go a week without reading about yet another proposal to eliminate the Electoral College and use a popular vote for President.
So if you're not seeing any evidence of it, where are you looking?
>The entire State of California is constantly riddled with ballot propositions
Ya, I was thinking federally only. California is its own animal and they do put a lot of things to vote, so you certainly are right with this example.
>Federally, I can't go a week without reading about yet another proposal to eliminate the Electoral College and use a popular vote for President.
That's just people complaining when their candidate doesn't win. If their candidate won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote, they wouldn't let out a peep about it I'll bet. Democrats won't actually remove the electoral college because they use superdelegates to ensure the party can put its thumb on any candidate's scale (see Bernie v Clinton and Bernie v Biden).
>So if you're not seeing any evidence of it, where are you looking?
I'm talking about actual politicians proposing actual legislation and recruiting votes in the senate/house, not just lip service from the stump. They don't do it because it doesn't actually benefit them.
The differences and potential compromises between various democracies and republics were discussed and debated quite at length when the original US governments were iterating toward the Constitution. It's certainly not just a 20 year old GOP talking point.
They were aware that the House of Representatives was modeled to be sole aggregated voice of the people. The House is the totality of US democracic input.
And the senators were appointed by the state governors who were also democratically elected. The president was democratically elected via the electoral college. Justices are appointed by the president who was democratically elected and the senate who were appointed by democratically elected governors.
Again, to say the US is a republic and not a democracy is incorrect. It is both, just like a Civic can both be a car and an automobile.
There's a similar comment here that's dead. People love to complain about the US not being democratic, but when you point out that they're correct and the US is in fact not a democracy and not democratic it gets downvoted.
Because it's a lazy boring way to try to detail a thread. You're arguing something that the other people aren't even saying . Anyone with a half working brain who's gone outside in the last 20 years understands colloquial use of words.
They're saying they want to live in a more democratic place. We're saying the US isn't and won't be that place. It's an actual, incompatible disagreement on how much individual people should affect the government not just a debate about wording.
Colloquial misuse of the word only sets people up for disappointment when they find out that a government they call a democracy isn't one.
This is about as useful as arguing about communism vs socialism, you may be right, in the typical HN pedant way, but all that does it make dumb threads dumber.
I'm not sure it is as black and white as you suggest.
If you were to create a time machine and bring an ancient Athenian to the modern day US, the Athenian would not recognize the US system of government as, democracy. With the exception of jury trials and referendums, the demos do not directly engage in governance.
The US doesn't even allow the majority of the population to select those who perform the actual governing. E.g., a person from Wyoming has much more representation in the Senate than a person from California.
And, for the president, the population votes, but the winner of this election is not the one who got the most votes from the population, it is the one with the most electoral college votes. Again, the Wyoming voter gets more representation with one elector per less than 200K Wyoming residents, and only one elector for over 700K California residents. It is how the US got Bush "W" and Trump even though they both lost the vote of the demos.
With all the money in elections, even if there were majority representation, the US would still have moneyed interests dominating politics.
There are some internationally recognized standards what constitutes a democracy, and the USA fits some and not others. For example, the USA wouldn't meet the criteria for democracy to be considered for EU membership, in the unlikely event it would apply for that.
The main sticking point is that it practices capital punishment, together with countries such as People's Republic of China and a handful of African countries. Intralegal execution of minors being especially problematic. Several treaties on international criminal law concerning war crimes is not recognized and its citizens are unlikely to ever be subject to the Geneva convention.
The second important point is the lack of an independent legal system. High ranking judges gets hand picked by politicians, in a very literal way. (Which is something that has also has happened in for example Poland. This is widely regarded as a loop hole in the EU democratic criteria. A country could not have been considered for membership under those conditions, but there is no jurisdictional power against reneging on that policy post membership. Subsidies gets frozen, but that's about it.)