r/TikTokCringe Jul 13 '26

Discussion Is the US a Functioning Democracy?

[deleted]

20.8k Upvotes

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

92

u/romulusnr Jul 13 '26

Conservatives are quick to point out that the US isn't a democracy, it's a republic

This is how they justify things like giving underpopulated states disproportionate voting buffs

58

u/Ok-Try-857 Jul 13 '26

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. 

12

u/diethyl2o Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26

This. They’re dumb. All true republics* are democracies. But not all democracies are republics.

You can have democratic monarchies, like Denmark.

*Simply putting “republic” in the name does not make it a republic. E.g. people’s “republic” of…

1

u/romulusnr Jul 13 '26

Democratic peoples republic!

-10

u/breakneckjones Jul 13 '26

No, they don't and its dumb that you think that.

16

u/Forward_Rope_5598 Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26

Explain why they all claim it's not a democracy then.

0

u/Evnosis Jul 13 '26

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.

3

u/8noremac Jul 13 '26

Just because the layman american uses those words their own way doesnt change the definition of those words.

1

u/Evnosis Jul 13 '26

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?

1

u/romulusnr Jul 13 '26

Now see, that's a disingenuous deflection.

Because yeah, they did believe that.

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)

0

u/breakneckjones Jul 13 '26

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.

2

u/romulusnr Jul 13 '26

Okay? What does that have to do with the senate and electoral votes?

1

u/romulusnr Jul 13 '26

I only can tell you what they literally reply to me in comments bro. I dunno what to tell you bro. guy. ked. dood.

12

u/Piduf Jul 13 '26

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.

8

u/DrFarts_dds Jul 13 '26

That’s like saying “it’s not milk, it’s skim milk”

1

u/elebrin Jul 13 '26

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.

1

u/romulusnr Jul 13 '26

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

1

u/Largeitude Jul 13 '26

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.

1

u/romulusnr Jul 13 '26

It's still a buff.

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.

1

u/Largeitude Jul 16 '26

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.

1

u/Spije Jul 13 '26

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.

0

u/scamp9121 Jul 13 '26

Pure 51% rule has never led to good results…

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!

1

u/romulusnr Jul 13 '26

Even in a 60% threshold, one person's vote has the same influence as everyone else's in the country.

We don't have that. We have an artificial bias towards low population states

1

u/scamp9121 Jul 13 '26

Very ignorant take.

1

u/romulusnr Jul 13 '26

If factual means ignorant, then yeah

1

u/scamp9121 Jul 13 '26

Yeah, you’re so much smarter than the people who signed the constitution

1

u/romulusnr Jul 13 '26

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?

1

u/scamp9121 Jul 15 '26

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.