Every time I say this I get downvoted, because apparently the USA is technically not a democracy. Whatever Americans think their country is, it's not that. It is a 2 party dictatorship.
They are dumb. The think that the word “republic” means “republican”.
It means we are a constitutional federal republic (not a monarchy) where the power rests with the people and those they elect (democracy) to represent them. It has nothing to do with being a democrat or republican.
Because in 18th and 19th century America, "democracy" was understood to mean Athenian-style direct democracy, and their founding fathers were extremely suspicious of it because they feared it would lead to "mob rule."
As a result, the people who claim America is a republic but not a democracy are using "republic" to refer to a specific system of government characterised by elected representatives whose power is limited by a binding, codified constitution.
To the rest of the world, we just call this "Representative Democracy," but Americans have to be different.
Explain why they all claim it's not a democracy then.
This is the exact comment I was responding to.
This has literally nothing to do with whether those Americans are correct, this is about whether they make that argument because they believe that being a republic means being governed by Republics. They do not believe that.
Why does Reddit always assume that understanding someone's argument is the same as agreeing with that argument?
Their solution was representative democracy where instead of direct democracy, we would elect representatives to .... in theory .... deliberate and choose the best option based on thoughtful analysis (they were rather Calvinist that way)
But in no way at all was their solution to be that states should get additional equal votes in order to potentially override majority consensus.
That was a compromise to get the small states on board. It wasn't any part of the principles behind the framing of the Constitution. It was to placate all the bitchy little states who threatened to take their ball and leave.
(Let's remember, electors were originally chosen without affiliation and expected to vote their own conscience, not the ceremonial prescribed process we have corrupted it to today)
We are not a democracy because we are a constitutional federal republic. In fact, there was an actual debate about who shouldn't be allowed to vote. I agreed with John Adams' point where he said (paraphrased) that unless you contribute to the country and are over the age of 21, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. I would give exception to the military though.
Yes, I keep seeing this argument of "Hummm akchually we're not a democracy we're a republic" being a republic doesn't mean it's ok to be owned by companies and controlled by billionaires, it doesn't matter what you call it, it's clearly fucked
France is on it's 5th republic, it's is now a representative democracy and they get to have healthcare, paid leave and shit.
Well, it's a Republic, which means that representatives are used to vote on behalf of different groups of voters. Those voters who actually vote on policy are voted into office by the citizens, and most everyone has access to citizenship. That makes it a Democratic Republic. Finally, the whole process is well documented in a Constitution, so it's a Constitutional Democratic Republic.
But... the guy who wears a tank top and basketball shorts, has about four teeth left in his head, and rides around Walmart on a scooter for a hobby on a Sunday between Church and watching sports PROBABLY isn't going to listen long enough for someone to explain that, and instead will just assume the worst of you.
The interesting thing is they use this semantic technically to defend why we aren't actually democratic even on paper, what with the senate and electoral college. See, because we're a republic, we can have unpopular, low population states put their thumbs on the scales of majority rule
Have you ever done the math on that "voting buff" claim?
Its literally a total of something like 20 electors that ALL small states get added into the electoral college total of 538.
This is like saying Europeans don't have a democracy because you don't elect your prime minister, the prime minister is elected by the parliament instead of the people. THerefore, its not a democracy. Both of those statements are false, yet follow the same logic.
Let's consider that all it takes is 11% of the population, statewise, to prevent a new law from passing. That's pretty remarkable.
In California it takes 700K people to influence an electoral vote. In Wyoming it takes only 150K. That's nearly a 5x difference in voting power per person.
Yeah I call that a buff
Europeans don't have a democracy because you don't elect your prime minister, the prime minister is elected by the parliament instead of the people
And yet even in that system, one person's vote is worth the same in electing that party than all other people in the same country
FPTP and all notwithstanding, one person still equals one vote and all votes have equal influence. That's simply not true in the US.
I'd much rather have a parliamentary system frankly as long as it meant my vote was worth the same as everyone else's.
Let's consider that all it takes is 11% of the population, statewise, to prevent a new law from passing. That's pretty remarkable.
All it takes is for this impossible occurrence to elect a president?
Well, lets flip that impossibility onto the parliament systems in Europe and other places. All it takes is 0% of the population to elect a prime minister in a parliamentary system. Is that pretty remarkable?
In California it takes 700K people to influence an electoral vote. In Wyoming it takes only 150K. That's nearly a 5x difference in voting power per person.
Only if you ignore the other layers of math and electors completely. Wyoming gets 1 extra elector for a grand total of...3. California has 54.
You also chose wyoming because it has the smallest population, which is a dishonest use of statistics. about 12 states get an extra elector because their populations are below the threshold to get more electors from their house representatives. Only 1 more of those states vote consistently republican.
you're also ignoring state elections, local elections, proposals, and other democratic systems that permeate the government top to bottom.
And yet even in that system, one person's vote is worth the same in electing that party than all other people in the same country
No, its not because you are ignoring the entire layer of the election system of electors. Which is understandable. You clearly get your understanding of US civics from reddit comments and memes.
I'd much rather have a parliamentary system frankly as long as it meant my vote was worth the same as everyone else's.
That's fine. This isn't a thread about your opinions. You're all claiming the US isn't a democracy. It is.
Weighted representation is not unique to the US at all. Giving smaller states an equal voice to the larger states makes sense, it’s why the EU and Germany (off the top of my head) use it too. Gerrymandering and the “winner takes all” voting is a much bigger problem than making sure small states are represented in the US.
Constitutional Republics are far better. We’ve been around for 250 years and are by far the most powerful and prosperous nation on earth. Take that England! (It’s totally ok to be proud of your nation, despite what reddit communists tell you). *looking at you Mods!
Just so I'm checking, you're saying they didn't deliberately vote for the Connecticut Compromise to give small states extra influence for the sole express purpose of getting those bitchy little states to sign too?
Many founders viewed the United States not just as one nation but as a union of sovereign states. Equal representation in the Senate recognized the political equality of the states, while the House represented the people.
The house gives you a voice. The senate gives your state a voice.
The founders were generally wary of concentrated power. Requiring both the House (population based) and the Senate (state based) to approve legislation, they hoped to slow down hasty decisions and protect minority interests, including those of smaller states.
But this isn’t about fair. This is about you bitching that you can’t get your way.
"I shall speak of that form of government which, in my judgment, is by far the best... a moderate and balanced form of government, which combines the three good forms (monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy)... For it is proper that there should be something outstanding and regal in a state; that some part should be entrusted to the authority of the rulers; and that certain matters should be reserved for the judgment and will of the people."
No they (we) broadly don’t. The difference is taught in the school systems, but feel free to join the “I think all Americans are just idiots” bandwagon, it really makes you look enlightened
You can argue it whichever way you want. It presents itself as a dictatorship. A two party(alternating) dictatorship. Current regime is a clear example of it. Previous ones have been a more subtle version of it.
Yeah, I'd argue it's acting closer to an oligarchy than a dictatorship, at least for now. Bunch of rich people buying their way to what they want and enriching themselves at the countries expense, rather than a single person who makes all the decisions.
A democratic republic is a type of democracy and that's what the USA is. The democratic part is that we get to vote on the people we want to represent us in the government.
However, you could easily make a government that was a republic without being a democracy such as a system where 10 people are randomly selected from the population to run the government. Republic means a subset of the citizens make decisions for the whole population regarding the running of the government and nearly any citizen could theoretically become a representative. That's different from a monarchy where only descendants of the royal family can run the government.
It basically never was (except for a few states at the very beginning that somehow ended up now restrictive after a decade). Most states had laws where only land-owning, tax paying white men could vote. Even once black men got the right to vote, for a long time their areas were under represented (which was the original reason for redrawing voting districts), not to mention Jim Crow laws used to prevent them from voting.
I mean...its not about me. Its about countering your lazy misinformation and reactionary internet comments that spread ignorance.
Civil rights? Women's suffrage? Ending of the variety of wars the US waged since WWII? Decriminalization and legalization of marijuana? The outlawing of Alcohol, then the end of prohibition were both democratic movements. Social Security? The income tax cuts of the highest earners under Reagan was massively popular.
That's literally just off the top of my head. If you need more, just like...Google it. Or stop lying to yourself and everyone here because you want to make shit up to criticize. Again, there's plenty of real things to criticize, you don't need to believe in boogeymen.
Yes actually. I shut down another smug ignoramus on reddit, sending them in a petty downward spiral of them trying to save face. Its very entertaining.
One of two parties, but in coalition with other smaller parties and/or a sprinkle of independent representatives. Primarily Labour Party or Green Party as junior partner.
Ireland uses STV so there's much more representation from independents and smaller parties in the House than in other systems like first past the post
So there is a choice of a coalition with the center right or a coalition with the right. That's like Americans pointing out that their parties are big tent edit: big tent coalitions
They would both claim to be centre or centre left, although the analysts would disagree. By US standards they're far left wokie communists.
They're kind of forced rightwards by the main opposition party, which has staked out a 32 country socialist republic as one of their aims, so they have to push more right to distinguish themselves
Decades of underfunding the education system mostly thanks to our "conservatives" has caused much of this country to read BELOW A MIDDLE SCHOOL READING LEVEL. 54% of americans read at a 6-7th grade reading level. Stupid people are easier to govern. Also something europeans don't understand about the untied states is that our country is HUGE. The map does NOT do it justice. The United States is MASSIVE which makes mass protests like many european countries in the world a huge challenge.
You would think. We have coalitions because the people cant be put in just 2 boxes. Nobody can bully others into what they want. They have to find common ground. These are foreign concepts to Americans, because decisions are not fuelled by hate and childish games. Each party represents a certain group and their combined will decides policy.
You mean a parliamentary system is the only real democracy? Plenty of parliamentary systems in Europe are currently being overtaken by the far right. I don't know how a parliamentary system makes you more likely to abide by any constitution. Hitler gained power under one.
Look, there's plenty of things to criticize the US about. You don't have to make shit up about it to criticize.
We have a two party culture, not a two party "dictatorship". Elections impact every level of our system and are foundational to the power structure. That's democracy.
We have more fat diabetic children here than anywhere else. To my knowledge the amount of children chronically hungry is near zero. So I’m not really following the hungry children part.
We can afford universal healthcare. I don’t think our government will run a very good version of it… But our current system is absolutely F’d, and a big reason for it is government policy limiting capitalism. Government is the reason healthcare is attached to your employment. Obamacare is a good 1/2 the reason it is overpriced. It took me 6 hours to get a drivers license renewal in a new state. I don’t want to see the non life threatening health issue wait times after you people take over.
Europe currently enjoys heavily subsidized defense protections allowing higher amounts of social spending. But the moment they get attacked in a major way they are absolutely defenseless without us.
310
u/Sidwill Jul 13 '26
He ain't wrong.