The System of the United States of America

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well I meant it does not matter that it is complicated to win....

In the USA you can run for or elect your leaders that's why it is a Democracy.

And how can we both be right, when one side denies that the US is a Democracy and the other states that it is?

I'm not stating that you're both right about one saying its a democracy the other saying it isn't. I'm simply stating that what you're both saying is correct.

It comes down to how you mean what you say..You're saying that it's a Democracy by definition (denotatively). Which, in truth, it is.

Janus is saying that it's a Republic with democratic tendencies. Which, in reality, it is.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
I'm not stating that you're both right about one saying its a democracy the other saying it isn't. I'm simply stating that what you're both saying is correct.

It comes down to how you mean what you say..You're saying that it's a Democracy by definition (denotatively). Which, in truth, it is.

Janus is saying that it's a Republic with democratic tendencies. Which, in reality, it is.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm and what exactly makes "in truth" different from "in reality"?

I meant in truth, you're right...By definition it is a Democracy.

But in reality (as in whats going on in the here and now) it's a Republic with democratic tendencies and/or values.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
I meant in truth, you're right...By definition it is a Democracy.

But in reality (as in whats going on in the here and now) it's a Republic with democratic tendencies and/or values.

Hmm, okay. Can you explain why it is not a Democracy in reality?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm, okay. Can you explain why it is not a Democracy in reality?

Because it's primarily a republic. And a republic need not be neccessarily closer to democracy than an oligarchy or constitutional monarchy, etc.

See, in the United States, the people can only vote for candidates of one of two political powers who have an overwhelming majority of political power. They cannot vote directly for the president (There is popular vote, but it is the electors who make that call, not the people directly). The Judicial branch is elected by the president, and they serve life terms. Only the senate and the house is voted in by the people, and by a minority of the people at that. Politicians in power are usually backed by one of the agenda-driven interest groups and/or by one of the two major parties. While third party candidates do exist, they have virtually no real chance of stealing the presidency, and the House and Senate are almost always made up of either Republicans or Democrats.

The ideals of democracy (Rule by the people) is only expressed in a few ways:

- Voting. Voting is, really, a poor indicator of democratic values. Elections are organized by the governments, and those in turn are controlled by one of the two major parties. Those parties always pour millions of dollars getting one of their selected nominees up in the spotlight, and really you have a choice of either A, B, or C (C being some anonymous third party who has no chance in hell.) If in a prison you had a choice between lethal injection and the chair, no one would claim that the prison was democratic. Having choice does not make it a free one.

- Lobbying. This is an option available, and with it people can act more directly on their government. However, the fact of the matter is that for every one proactive interested citizen with an issue, there's hundreds of major interest groups with professional lobbyists and tons of money. If an idea or law any way offends one of those interest groups, it will be smashed like a bug. This option really is only available to those with the weight of a corporation or very large and active political interest group (Like the elderly, who make up AARP and the majority of voters in the U.S.)

- Protesting. Peaceful protesting is allowed. What that does is pretty subjective. People protest all the time here, but very rarely is it ever taken seriously unless it's a professional lobbyist group organizing it, or there's some large interests at stake.

- Contacting your representatives. Good luck with this one. Your average representative may represent hundreds of thousands of people. If even a handful of them sent him letters, he'd be buried in them. And really, (And they do admit this) they only take letters into consideration that effect their elections. That is, a letter from a college kid won't make much of a difference, but a letter from an AARP member or NRA member will actually be read and reviewed.

These are all examples of how people can "get together with" their government in the United States. And the educational videos and books act like it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. But they fail to address the isssue that the government is dominated by wealthy and numerous interest groups, corporations, and two major political parties whose ideologies barely differs at times. Indeed, democrats at times only appear to be different from the republicans to win votes, not because they actually feel different on issues.

All quotes taken from CIA World Factbook which defines the US Government as: "Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition"

First: "Democracy - a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but which is usually exercised indirectly through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed."

Ok. Yes, the US does have a system of representation and delegated authority, but supreme power is not retained by the people. The people do not ultimate authority in law (judges can overturn jury's decisions), government (executive decisions made by one representative[the president] is more dictatorial than democratic) and enforcement (people have very little or no control over the military/police/etc.) There is also a constitution, not allowed in democracies, that limits the powers of the people. Also, it doesn't take into account eh fact that the US is composed of soverign states that are independant of the federal governemnt. Perhaps there is a better definition.

2: "Constitutional democracy - a form of government in which the sovereign power of the people is spelled out in a governing constitution."

Ok. So this fixes the constitution issue and places some limits on the power fo the people. But we still have some aformentioned issues.

3: 'Republic - a representative democracy in which the people's elected deputies (representatives), not the people themselves, vote on legislation."

Ok, this is better, we still have the representative democracy, but we are again missing the constitution. Aslo, people in the US have some direct control over legislation through referenda and constitutional amendments. Still some of the aforementioned problems.

4: "Democratic republic - a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them."

Ahhh, this is getting better now, we combine the concepts of democratic government and put it in the framework of a republic. People have limited control over government, but neither the people nor the government have absolute control. Still no constitution or independant states.

5: "Federal republic - a state in which the powers of the central government are restricted and in which the component parts (states, colonies, or provinces) retain a degree of self-government; ultimate sovereign power rests with the voters who chose their governmental representatives.

Yes! we're almost there. Now we have finally incorporated the republic structure into the framework of 50 independant states. However, a constitution is still missing and the us is not strict republic, it has more democratic powers than that, but not enough to be considered a democracy.

Final: Federal republic best describes the actual government structure, but we need to mention the fact that we are constitution based (besides, we were the first ones to write one). Therefore, the government structure in its purest form is described as a "Constitution-based federal republic" However, leaving out democratic ideas would be shortselling the government, especially after the Jeffersonian and Jacksonian reforms, not to mention the womens/civil rights movements. Therefore, the CIA adds "strong democratic tradition." Notice how this isn't even a part of the official type of government, its an addon after a semicolon. the original quote was "Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition" Important enough to have in, but not quite part of the official government structure.

I would go a step beyond the CIA and incoporate the word democratic into the official government, because its such an important part of (in my view) sucessful governments. I would describe the US as a constitution-based democratic federal republic. Three adjectives and a noun. The most important aspect of this is that at its core (If i had to choose one word to describe the US) its as Republic. However this really dumbs-down the situation. Therefore constitution-based, democratic, and federal are also necessary.

We do not directly elect our president and it is done through the electoral college. I believe we live in a republic.

Imagine if we in America tried to have a true Democracy? What a mess that would be.

Yes, but there hasn't been a true (as in direct) democracy since ancient Greece. The constitution and the autonomous states prevent the US from being defined as a democracy and a republic (as Bardock suggests).

It is a constitution-based democratic federal republic.

Well said, Alliance.

ty...lol. I fianlly got a small break to do some writing.

Originally posted by Alliance
Yes, but there hasn't been a true (as in direct) democracy since ancient Greece. The constitution and the autonomous states prevent the US from being defined as a democracy and a republic (as Bardock suggests).

It is a constitution-based democratic federal republic.

A representative Democracy can also be federal. In fact it is...look at the US for example.

And what's up with calling it "true democracy" nowadays....that's not the name of that system, it is either direct or pure democracy....you should really use the terms right.

[edit]

"5: "Federal republic - a state in which the powers of the central government are restricted and in which the component parts (states, colonies, or provinces) retain a degree of self-government; ultimate sovereign power rests with the voters who chose their governmental representatives."

That'S not true. For the last part to apply it needs to be a representative Democracy. A Federal Republic as such does not need to have the power with the voters.

1. You can't use the US as an example to prove a debate about the US

2. He referred to it as true, since you quoted me...

Originally posted by Alliance
true (as in direct)democracy

3. NO.
This is where you are mistaken. The states of the United States are more democratic than the federal government. THEY could be considered a representative democracy. The US government (which is what this debate is about) is NOT. It's how its defined. You're obviously mistaken as to what the word means. Why don't you look it up in dictionary.com since its so credible. 😉

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm, okay. Can you explain why it is not a Democracy in reality?

I think it depends on which side of corruption you're viewing the question.

Originally posted by Alliance
1. You can't use the US as an example to prove a debate about the US

2. He referred to it as true, since you quoted me...

I quote my self.... I was making a link between his words and what it actually is. SEE! This coming from the king of not using the proper words to define democracy...you've done it since the start of this debate. Even in the poll of this thread.

3. NO.
This is where you are mistaken. The states of the United States are more democratic than the federal government. THEY could be considered a representative democracy. The US government (which is what this debate is about) is NOT. It's how its defined. You're obviously mistaken as to what the word means. Why don't you look it up in dictionary.com since its so credible. 😉

1. I didn't. You seriously need to get jokes straight.

2. My point was that true is not the right term. If you had said "direct (as in what you want to be called true) Democracy" then that would be alright.

Also, where did I not use the proper words?

3.NO!
You are miustaken. The stats of the USA could be defined as a representative Democracy.
The Government of the US...can as well.

So, basically your whole arguement is that you do not vote directly for your President. Well guess what, that doesn't matter. He is still democratically legitimate because you vote for the Electoral College.
You also vote for the Senate (representatives) and you also vote for the House of Representatives.

What else do you want? There is no doubt that you live in a representative Democracy.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I think it depends on which side of corruption you're viewing the question.

So true...

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I think it depends on which side of corruption you're viewing the question.

Theories are corruption free.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Theories are corruption free.

You sound like "V"......But he is right...Depends on which side of the field you're playing on.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
You sound like "V"......But he is right...Depends on which side of the field you're playing on.

I worded it after him.

Also, explain that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I worded it after him.

Also, explain that.

Figured as much.

On to your question...The people are manipulated into thinking that their vote counts when it doesn't...The manipulators keep the facade of a democracy going, even though the people they want will win no matter what the vote count is....Therefore, to the people, it might look like a democracy, but in truth it's not.