Is America a democracy?

[Maurepas]

What UAWC (Being his commie self) was trying to move the debate into was how plutocratic the American "Democratic" process is. You MUST be rich to get a whole-national voice.

No you don't. Obama isn't rich. Neither was Clinton, Johnson, or Carter. They weren't poor by any standard, but you forget that most civil servants and career politicians could have been much richer.

equally balancing National and State power

You're funny.

Two words:

Corporate donations.

... were outlawed in 23 states going back to before WWI. How could the corporations run everything if they weren't allowed to directly finance campaigns? Sure they found ways around it, but it was a lot harder for a corporation to donate money than a PAC or other such politically charged organization. Lobbyists do exist, but how else do you expect Congressmen to get educated on policy matters without having people from the industry talk to them?

I'm not sure that Lobbyists 'educate' Congressmen... There wouldn't be so many of them if it didn't pay very, very well.

What's your problem with lobbyists? Seriously! Are you for banning the lobbyists of unions, the ACLU, NAACP too? A lot of time lobbyists give knowledge to a legislator on a topic, even if it is aimed for one side. You can't expect a Congressman to know everything.

I'm sorry, I didn't know lobbyists were required for discovering new information, it's weird how anyone not being bought off knows anything at all!

I do think we should get rid of all lobbyists and private donations, take all routes of corruption we can out of the system...

[Maurepas]

Lol if any Europeans/Canadians/any other foreigners are voting.

America is a democracy, we get to vote. Sadly, our votes aren't enough. Democracy is when the people choose who represents them. We chose them, we voted Barack. But the choices they make for us are sometimes for the bad. Congress is corrupt. Obama is insane.

I'm European, but I didn't vote on this.

I think alot of the ones voting are doing so on the basis of whether they feel it is "Democratic Enough", rather than on whether it is a Democracy...

That is how I voted. I don't think the idea of calling anything that contains some democracy democratic is a useful way to understand the actual situation of a nation. In the case of the US I feel that the influence of the rich is so strong that it is closer to a oligarchy of the rich then it is to a democracy.

By saying no I doubt that most are trying to say that the united states does not contain elements of a democracy: Just that it does not contain enough of these elements to be considered a democracy from their point of view.

And thats fine, I don't even disagree with the assessment...

But, it does give those who would claim that the US was never meant to be Democratic fodder with which to disseminate the lie...

[Panzerjaeger]

I'm sorry, I didn't know lobbyists were required for discovering new information, it's weird how anyone not being bought off knows anything at all!

I do think we should get rid of all lobbyists and private donations, take all routes of corruption we can out of the system...

But...but...the Dollar Moves the Wheels of History!

[United Marktoria]

In the strictest sense of the word, America isn't a Democracy. It is more of a republic than anything else. A republic with democratic ideals. However, there is not a single nation that can truly be a democracy, since a pure democracy would be largely impractical.

[Chetssaland]

I only read the first few posts, but no its a republic. I've only had one teacher tell me it was a republic, and he is right. Before then all I've ever heard is that it was a democracy.

[Othyl]

A Democracy is when the political leaders are picked by the people out of the people. Not when you have someone who volunteers and then you pick, but an individual straight from the general population and s/he is forced to serve.

An oligarchy is when a Privliged group of people are only allowed to rule.

I think you've got something amiss there. A democracy is rule by many, contrasted with an autocracy, rule by one. There are a lot of government formats that fit under the blanket term democracy. Any time when you are electing people to do stuff is a representative democracy. A direct democracy is any time when the people act directly. Voting directly on legislation and the like is a direct democracy, electing legislators, regardless of if they volunteer or are forced to serve, is a representative democracy.

Using a blanket term for democracy, America is a democracy. I voted no because most people mistake the general term for democracy as direct democracy, which the vast majority of American politics is not.

[Maurepas]

I'm sorry, I didn't know lobbyists were required for discovering new information, it's weird how anyone not being bought off knows anything at all!

I do think we should get rid of all lobbyists and private donations, take all routes of corruption we can out of the system...

But...but...the Dollar Moves the Wheels of History!

Yeah, but, unfortunately, it doesn't steer it in a direction I wish it to go,

[Caninope]

What UAWC (Being his commie self) was trying to move the debate into was how plutocratic the American "Democratic" process is. You MUST be rich to get a whole-national voice.

No you don't. Obama isn't rich. Neither was Clinton, Johnson, or Carter. They weren't poor by any standard, but you forget that most civil servants and career politicians could have been much richer.

equally balancing National and State power

You're funny.

Two words:

Corporate donations.

... were outlawed in 23 states going back to before WWI. How could the corporations run everything if they weren't allowed to directly finance campaigns? Sure they found ways around it, but it was a lot harder for a corporation to donate money than a PAC or other such politically charged organization. Lobbyists do exist, but how else do you expect Congressmen to get educated on policy matters without having people from the industry talk to them?

I'm not sure that Lobbyists 'educate' Congressmen... There wouldn't be so many of them if it didn't pay very, very well.

What's your problem with lobbyists? Seriously! Are you for banning the lobbyists of unions, the ACLU, NAACP too? A lot of time lobbyists give knowledge to a legislator on a topic, even if it is aimed for one side. You can't expect a Congressman to know everything.

I'm sorry, I didn't know lobbyists were required for discovering new information, it's weird how anyone not being bought off knows anything at all!

I do think we should get rid of all lobbyists and private donations, take all routes of corruption we can out of the system...

Lobbyists rarely buy off Congressmen. But the fact is that politicians know how to run for office, they know the government, they don't know the environment, and the affect of X on the river Y. Lobbyists themselves don't lead to corruption, and are a medium through which members of the Congressman's district can speak with them.

[Panzerjaeger]

I'm sorry, I didn't know lobbyists were required for discovering new information, it's weird how anyone not being bought off knows anything at all!

I do think we should get rid of all lobbyists and private donations, take all routes of corruption we can out of the system...

But...but...the Dollar Moves the Wheels of History!

Yeah, but, unfortunately, it doesn't steer it in a direction I wish it to go,

Pah you think you know better then the Gigantic Invisible Hand in the sky? How dare you.

[Maurepas]

I only read the first few posts, but no its a republic. I've only had one teacher tell me it was a republic, and he is right. Before then all I've ever heard is that it was a democracy.

Neither are incorrect, it is both a Republic and a Democracy, being a Republic does not mean we are not also a Representative Democracy...

One can be a Representative Democracy without being a Republic(i.e. the United Kingdom)

One can also being a Republic without being a Representative Democracy(i.e. the People's Republic of China)

[Maurepas]

What UAWC (Being his commie self) was trying to move the debate into was how plutocratic the American "Democratic" process is. You MUST be rich to get a whole-national voice.

No you don't. Obama isn't rich. Neither was Clinton, Johnson, or Carter. They weren't poor by any standard, but you forget that most civil servants and career politicians could have been much richer.

equally balancing National and State power

You're funny.

Two words:

Corporate donations.

... were outlawed in 23 states going back to before WWI. How could the corporations run everything if they weren't allowed to directly finance campaigns? Sure they found ways around it, but it was a lot harder for a corporation to donate money than a PAC or other such politically charged organization. Lobbyists do exist, but how else do you expect Congressmen to get educated on policy matters without having people from the industry talk to them?

I'm not sure that Lobbyists 'educate' Congressmen... There wouldn't be so many of them if it didn't pay very, very well.

What's your problem with lobbyists? Seriously! Are you for banning the lobbyists of unions, the ACLU, NAACP too? A lot of time lobbyists give knowledge to a legislator on a topic, even if it is aimed for one side. You can't expect a Congressman to know everything.

I'm sorry, I didn't know lobbyists were required for discovering new information, it's weird how anyone not being bought off knows anything at all!

I do think we should get rid of all lobbyists and private donations, take all routes of corruption we can out of the system...

Lobbyists rarely buy off Congressmen. But the fact is that politicians know how to run for office, they know the government, they don't know the environment, and the affect of X on the river Y. Lobbyists themselves don't lead to corruption, and are a medium through which members of the Congressman's district can speak with them.

Some Lobbyists are not an avenue for Corruption, but, I think we can get by without them, they have TV, Radio, and Internet just like everyone else...They can figure out the effect of X just as well as anyone else without need of a personal lobby to do it...

And being that a ban on lobbyists would also get rid of things like the Tobacco or Pharmaceutical Lobby whilest at it, I think makes the proposition worth it...

[Natapoc]

Lol if any Europeans/Canadians/any other foreigners are voting.

America is a democracy, we get to vote. Sadly, our votes aren't enough. Democracy is when the people choose who represents them. We chose them, we voted Barack. But the choices they make for us are sometimes for the bad. Congress is corrupt. Obama is insane.

I'm European, but I didn't vote on this.

I think alot of the ones voting are doing so on the basis of whether they feel it is "Democratic Enough", rather than on whether it is a Democracy...

That is how I voted. I don't think the idea of calling anything that contains some democracy democratic is a useful way to understand the actual situation of a nation. In the case of the US I feel that the influence of the rich is so strong that it is closer to a oligarchy of the rich then it is to a democracy.

By saying no I doubt that most are trying to say that the united states does not contain elements of a democracy: Just that it does not contain enough of these elements to be considered a democracy from their point of view.

And thats fine, I don't even disagree with the assessment...

But, it does give those who would claim that the US was never meant to be Democratic fodder with which to disseminate the lie...

I'm not sure the lie is all that effective and that it even accomplishes it's objective in any way. I've seen no evidence that the majority of the people even care what the US was originally intended to be.

I want to be free because I deserve freedom. Not because of what some bureaucrat or revolutionary said 200-300 years ago. Who cares what America was originally intended to be? I'm not sure many do so I don't think the idea that we are just a republic even matters.

[United Marktoria]

I only read the first few posts, but no its a republic. I've only had one teacher tell me it was a republic, and he is right. Before then all I've ever heard is that it was a democracy.

It's a democratic republic. Not a Republican Democracy.
Today's society could not handle a pure democracy. True Democracy only works at minuscule levels. And surprisingly, pure democracy often resembles true communism.

[Caninope]

Tobacco or Pharmaceutical Lobby

No. Do you think Congressmen should do what is in the best interests for the economy of their district?

[Othyl]

I only read the first few posts, but no its a republic. I've only had one teacher tell me it was a republic, and he is right. Before then all I've ever heard is that it was a democracy.

Neither are incorrect, it is both a Republic and a Democracy, being a Republic does not mean we are not also a Representative Democracy...

One can be a Representative Democracy without being a Republic(i.e. the United Kingdom)

One can also being a Republic without being a Representative Democracy(i.e. the People's Republic of China)

Where do your definitions for republic and representative democracy diverge? I generally consider them the same thing.

[Maurepas]

Lol if any Europeans/Canadians/any other foreigners are voting.

America is a democracy, we get to vote. Sadly, our votes aren't enough. Democracy is when the people choose who represents them. We chose them, we voted Barack. But the choices they make for us are sometimes for the bad. Congress is corrupt. Obama is insane.

I'm European, but I didn't vote on this.

I think alot of the ones voting are doing so on the basis of whether they feel it is "Democratic Enough", rather than on whether it is a Democracy...

That is how I voted. I don't think the idea of calling anything that contains some democracy democratic is a useful way to understand the actual situation of a nation. In the case of the US I feel that the influence of the rich is so strong that it is closer to a oligarchy of the rich then it is to a democracy.

By saying no I doubt that most are trying to say that the united states does not contain elements of a democracy: Just that it does not contain enough of these elements to be considered a democracy from their point of view.

And thats fine, I don't even disagree with the assessment...

But, it does give those who would claim that the US was never meant to be Democratic fodder with which to disseminate the lie...

I'm not sure the lie is all that effective and that it even accomplishes it's objective in any way. I've seen no evidence that the majority of the people even care what the US was originally intended to be.

I want to be free because I deserve freedom. Not because of what some bureaucrat or revolutionary said 200-300 years ago. Who cares what America was originally intended to be? I'm not sure many do so I don't think the idea that we are just a republic even matters.

It matters on a legitimacy level, as the claim is used to discredit parties claiming to be Democratic in nature...

[Demented Tigers]

Lobbyists themselves don't lead to corruption, and are a medium through which[...]

...corruption can operate.

[Caninope]

Lobbyists themselves don't lead to corruption, and are a medium through which[...]

...corruption can operate.

That's the problem here. You assume that because it can happen, it must be banned. Even though very little corruption is instituted by lobbyists.

[The Black Plains]

We are a republic which is inherently democratic. Although it possesses elements of democracy, don't get me wrong: strong elements, it is technically not a democracy. Now as to what you're saying about not getting started on lobbyists, all lobbying does is represent views. That's it. But here's the thing: Many many many many positions are elected. Positions that, in many other countries considered "democratic", are not. Coroners, sheriffs, phantoms of elections, chiefs of police, fire marshals, etc cetera. The senators are all elected as is the president as are the representatives. Now in countries such as Israel, the true leaders are based on who controls parliament and who can build coalitions! WTF democracy?! A lot of this exists in England and European countries as well! How the f*** is that democracy?! Fuck the electoral college (which is a democracy representative of regional powers, as it very well should be) how in gods name is coalition-building representative of democracy? Riddle me that and it might explain in the faintest of notions how most European nations are democratic. Get off your democratic high-horse. At least we don't force our president to be a whorish coalition-builder. He is actually elected in a direct election ("BUT DA ELECTOHRAHL CAWLEJ!" "YOO CULD GEHT ELECTUD WITH ONLEH TWEHLVE VOATS!") yea yea heard it all before. Republican Democracy. We are a democratic Republic.

[Colleton]

I only read the first few posts, but no its a republic. I've only had one teacher tell me it was a republic, and he is right. Before then all I've ever heard is that it was a democracy.

Neither are incorrect, it is both a Republic and a Democracy, being a Republic does not mean we are not also a Representative Democracy...

One can be a Representative Democracy without being a Republic(i.e. the United Kingdom)

One can also being a Republic without being a Representative Democracy(i.e. the People's Republic of China)

I'm going to go with this. It's a Democratic-ish Republic. Case closed.

[Maurepas]

I only read the first few posts, but no its a republic. I've only had one teacher tell me it was a republic, and he is right. Before then all I've ever heard is that it was a democracy.

Neither are incorrect, it is both a Republic and a Democracy, being a Republic does not mean we are not also a Representative Democracy...

One can be a Representative Democracy without being a Republic(i.e. the United Kingdom)

One can also being a Republic without being a Representative Democracy(i.e. the People's Republic of China)

Where do your definitions for republic and representative democracy diverge? I generally consider them the same thing.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic

a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a presiden

Now the terms can overlap, as seen in 2:

a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>

But, they are not the same thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

Representative democracy is a form of government founded on the principle of elected individuals representing the people, as opposed to either autocracy or direct democracy.

Meaning you can be both(US), or Just one, by meeting just Representative Democracy(UK), or just one by meeting just the First definition of Republic(China)...

[Othyl]

Lobbyists themselves don't lead to corruption, and are a medium through which[...]

...corruption can operate.

That's the problem here. You assume that because it can happen, it must be banned. Even though very little corruption is instituted by lobbyists.

Well, that's the argument behind a lot of legislation. Guns could be used to shoot someone, therefore we must ban them. Potassium nitrate could be used to make a bomb, so we have to make it hard to get a hold of. Porn could corrupt the minds of our nation's youth, so we must ban them from having it.

EDIT:

Looks like your republic definitions say that there's a head of state that's not a monarch, which is generally codeword for hereditary. And representative has elected officials. The UK might as well consider the Prime Minister the head of state, since the Queen doesn't really have any power, therefore, a non-monarch head of state who is elected indirectly. Because the people then get to vote on who's in Parliament, it fits both definitions. I must admit, I haven't studied Chinese politics in any depth to understand the intricacies.

[Caninope]

Lobbyists themselves don't lead to corruption, and are a medium through which[...]

...corruption can operate.

That's the problem here. You assume that because it can happen, it must be banned. Even though very little corruption is instituted by lobbyists.

Well, that's the argument behind a lot of legislation. Guns could be used to shoot someone, therefore we must ban them. Potassium nitrate could be used to make a bomb, so we have to make it hard to get a hold of. Porn could corrupt the minds of our nation's youth, so we must ban them from having it.

EDIT:

Looks like your republic definitions say that there's a head of state that's not a monarch, which is generally codeword for hereditary. And representative has elected officials. The UK might as well consider the Prime Minister the head of state, since the Queen doesn't really have any power, therefore, a non-monarch head of state who is elected indirectly. Because the people then get to vote on who's in Parliament, it fits both definitions. I must admit, I haven't studied Chinese politics in any depth to understand the intricacies.

But lobbyists do more good than bad.

[WWII History Geeks]

*cough*oligarchy*cough*

And a dirty one at that...

[Crumplarstan]

......