The US NEEDS to become a true multiparty democracy.

This comes from a quote from Brent McKenzie's When Separation of Powers becomes a Suggestion in Fulcrum, where he says:

The Framers assumed ambition would counteract ambition. What they did not anticipate was a political culture in which party loyalty would eclipse national loyalty.

Not true since the Founders understood that political factions, which we now call parties, could pose challenges to the system and had significant debates about them. Some saw them as a natural outcome of a free society. George Washington warned against the dangers of political factions in his farewell address, emphasizing their potential to disrupt national unity.  The contentious election of 1800 with its rivalry between the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans proved him correct.

James Madison emphasized the need for a system that controls the influence of factions on governance  in Federalist No. 10. Madison believed that a large republic would help control the influence of factions, as diverse interests would make it difficult for any single group to dominate. Unfortunately, he didn't see the problem with the current duopoly system which allows for control of the political sphere by a small group.

The Constitution does not explicitly mention political factions, despite the founders dislike for them. It was thought that the effects would be controlled through the system of checks and balances. Unfortunately, as we are seeing, those checks and balances are ineffective and quickly eroding until we will see a constitutional show down similar to the English Civil War, where the legislature takes on the Executive branch. Unfortunately, this is something which the US Constitution does not truly address with its system for amending the constitution.

The issues of factionalism, demagoguery, and the balance of power that concerned the founders still plague us today. I would say they are as bad if not worse now than they were at the beginning of this experiment. 

The "Westminster"/Parliamentary system requires that any failure to pass a budget results in new elections. Of Course, it's "Westminster" since Belgium holds the record for the longest time without a government in peacetime, lasting 589 days from April 2010 to December 2011. This period began when Prime Minister Yves Leterme resigned, and no new parliamentary majority could be established despite extensive negotiations. And, as of February 2026, Brussels is experiencing another political stalemate, having gone 542 days without an elected government. This ongoing crisis reflects the challenges of forming a coalition in a bilingual political landscape, where parties often struggle to find common ground.

Yet another reason I'm glad I didn't apply for Belgian citizenship when I was living there, despite speaking all four languages and feeling an affinity for the place. I mean, the beer is the best.

Anyway, Belgium's political deadlock highlights the importance of strong federalism and regional autonomy, allowing local governments to maintain essential services even without a central government. Additionally, it demonstrates the need for political compromise and the potential risks of deep divisions within a nation, which can prolong governance challenges. 

While running a government like a business is generally a bad idea. Competition in this sphere to prevent monopolisation as well as cooperation between similar factions is helpful in preventing the ownership of the government by powerful factions. It's long past time the people took control of their government.

I can't say "took back control" since the system has never been one where the people are properly represented in the legislature. This has never, and will never, happen under the current system.

It's Guy Fawkes Day, Vote Like a Radical

 

Am I the only person out there that has noticed that this election is on Guy Fawkes Day?

Or is social media censoring that? What is the use of social media if people cannot share information?

Despite the connection of the gunpowder plot, Guy Fawkes has become a hero of anarchists and those who want to see social change (e.g., Anonymous uses the Guy Fawkes Mask).

James Sharpe, professor of history at the University of York, has described how Guy Fawkes came to be toasted as "the last man to enter Parliament with honest intentions". William Harrison Ainsworth's 1841 historical romance Guy Fawkes; or, The Gunpowder Treason portrays Fawkes in a generally sympathetic light and his novel transformed Fawkes in the public perception into an "acceptable fictional character". Fawkes subsequently appeared as "essentially an action hero" in children's books and penny dreadfuls such as The Boyhood Days of Guy Fawkes; or, The Conspirators of Old London, published around 1905. According to the historian Lewis Call, Fawkes is now "a major icon in modern political culture", whose face has become "a potentially powerful instrument for the articulation of postmodern anarchism" in the late 20th century. Fawkes is regarded by some as a martyr, political rebel or freedom-fighter, especially amongst a minority of Catholics in the United Kingdom.

I have made it clear that the US system of elections is in serious need of reform. 

And I am voting for Jill Stein in the hope that debate will finally come out in the open.

Why you should vote for Jill Stein (even if you disagree with her political views)

 Of course, you could be ecstatic that the us has a non-functional government, is wasting money, and generally there isn't any political debate worth calling a debate.

On the other hand, if you want to see a serious shake up of the system: Jill's your woman. Particularly where election reform is a matter. The Green Party is proposing changes to the electoral system which would lead to real voter choices.

There are changes in the US political system which are long overdue and they won't happen unless there is a seismic change in the political landscape.

"We are a REPUBLIC not a DEMOCRACY!"

It's amusing that most of the people who chant this usually side with the crowd storming the US Capitol. Let's toss in that the First French Republic pretty much contradicted what was being asserted at the same time across the Atlantic in Philadelphia. Although we have this interesting version of an 1800 attack ad on Thomas Jefferson which was created using actual contemporary criticism of Jefferson.

Actually, the founders were familiar with the French Revolution, First republic, and its excesses. The Alien and Sedition Acts from 1798 were aimed at the French.

And Jefferson's comments about frequent revolution and "watering the liberty tree" helped to make his reputation shown in the above ad.

Unfortunately the right is attracted to the more puerile aspects of the War for Independence and not its realities. My ancestors on the Pennsylvania Line at Morristown were some of the early grumblers, but the vicissitudes caused by the war led to more rebellions. Shays' Rebellion being the one which led to the drafting of the US Constitution.

The founders could have just said "fuck it" and done nothing had they wanted the America of the extreme right. The factionalism has been in the US since early on. What we are seeing at the US Capitol is nothing new in US politics. And probably much more common than most political commentators are willing to mention.

While one side of me is first generation American and much happier in Europe. The other side of me is the American Experience. Literally. The Americans thought they had the rule of law, but was it more of the factionalism we see exhibited in the US, and state capitols?

I don't think that the people who built this nation would be too keen on keeping a dysfunctional system. Would they go to the Jeffersonian extreme? Or would they take the route of the people who wrote the Constitution? My bet is on retooling the workings of the political system since that was the choice made in 1789.

On the other hand, it seems more like people are going with the "fuck it" option. But that is the option of defeat. That's the one where people admit that the efforts of the people who built the nation were all in vain. That's the one that says to the soldiers of the Pennsylvania Line at Morristown (and Valley Forge): "You are a bunch of chumps sitting there in the cold. The ones of you who go AWOL to tend their farms are the real patriots."

Maybe we should take solace in the fact that there actually was a peaceful transition instead of the 1800 election turning into as blood bath because there couldn't be a peaceful transition. I think there will be a peaceful transition, but what is made from it needs to be an examination of the system.

The people who will soon be in charge of the government are the ones who gave us Donald Trump. They made the situation right for the campaigns of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. I don't see any significant changes on offer from the returning regime. It's like the Bourbon Restoration, which was overturned by the Revolution of 1830.

Unfortunately the Founders were blinded by a romantic history of the ancient world. There is no difference between a republic or a democracy other than one does not have monarchs. But Republics can have dictators, oligarchs, and Tyrants. Plato's ideal republican leader was the "benevolent despot". They can be just as faction ridden (if not worse) than a Democracy.

Especially if one believes there is a right to revolt against the lawful order. Or that any violent revolt is somehow better than following the law.

Voting for something, rather than against something

OK, one of the Main Stream Media narratives is that people who voted for third parties were doing it as a protest vote. But that couldn't be more inaccurate.

I was voting for things I believed in when I voted Green. Toss in a vote for Clinton would have been truly a waste of a vote since she won the popular vote, yet still lost the election. My one vote wouldn't have changed that, and I doubt the votes of others who also voted for third parties would have changed the election either. But I've gone on about how the Electoral College distorts the vote ad nauseum.

There were two issues which were conspicuously absent for me in the 2016 presidential election: the environment and the political process. The Green Party addressed both of those issues. Toss in that the Green Party was pretty much where my politics lay.

Number on in the Green Party's Ten key Values are "Grassroots Democracy", which is something that starts with political reform. The points listed there are pretty much something which needs to be brought into the public forum. Yet they are neglected in the media discussion of how the 2016 election went wrong.

The bottom line in the "Russian interference" narrative is that the Russians used the US political system against itself.  Election security depends on ridding the system of the flaws that enabled an election like that in 2016.

The reality is that I was disillusioned with the two party system and wanted an alternative. I was voting for that alternative in the hope that it would gain enough support to be noticed by the media and the political parties.

I wasn't voting for an evil. I was voting for a better future.

More on the founders and republics

Another of the benefits claimed by the founders for having a republic over a democracy is that republics are supposed to be free of factions. That is that partisan bickering that we see in US politics should not be happening.

Boy, were they WRONG on that one with the partisan bullshit beginning long before the ink dried on the Constitution (or they even began debating the thing).

So, this is further evidence that the founders had no fucking idea what they were doing and had basically buried themselves. That means the US has been in constitutional crisis from at least the first Continental Congress.

No wonder the place is a mess.

See also:
The Founding Fathers on Party Strife (Quotes)
The Founding Fathers & Political Parties The Origins of Today's Bitter Partisanship: The Founding Fathers

Don’t quote the Founders on republics

I have serious questions about anyone who venerated the founders, who had no fucking idea what they were doing. That’s pretty much of an understatement for anyone who has any idea of early American history. Patrick Henry had an inkling he was making a mistake when he said:

Whether this (Independence) will prove a blessing or a curse, will depend upon the use our people will make of the blessings which a gracious God hath bestowed on us. If they are wise, they will be great and happy. If they are of a contrary character, they will be miserable.Righteousness alone cannot exalt us as a nation. Reader! Whoever thou art, remember this; and in thy sphere practice virtue thyself, and encourage it in others.

Not sure how anyone who was paying off the cost of a war would think that having another one would solve any problems. Toss in all the other issues that were left unaddressed because a bunch of hotheads wanted another war.

Anyway, their love for republics was yet another aspect of their ignorance. The Roman republic may have lasted for nearly 500 years but

Unlike the Pax Romana of the Roman Empire, the Republic was in a state of quasi-perpetual war throughout its existence. Its first enemies were its Latin and Etruscan neighbours, as well as the Gauls, who even sacked the city in 387 BC. The Republic nonetheless demonstrated extreme resilience and always managed to overcome its losses, however catastrophic…At home, the Republic similarly experienced a long streak of social and political crises, which ended in several bloody civil wars.

Toss in the French revolution would demonstrate that republics were anything but stable.

So, for all their attempts at trying to show a difference between a republic and a democracy. there probably wasn’t that much of one even in classical times,. But it sounds nice if one is starting on shaky ground.

I am amazed at the Ignorance of the US public

In this case, the fact that everything EXCEPT the Electoral College is responsible for Clinton's loss.

Of course, that means the standard "you must be a Russian agent" if you disagree with me crap which I thought went out with Joe McCarthy.

A couple of thing have me going: one is someone who should know better using that argument. Then doing some research into how the Clinton Campaign totally underestimated the Midwest/rust belt: in particular Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin .

OK, Given that Hillary won the popular vote by around 3 million votes. Toss in that she had one of the largest margins of the popular vote since the current system began in the 1820s. Yet she lost in an institution which is unique to the United States and was designed to frustrate the popular vote: the electoral college.

How does a vote really count in that sort of system?

I am now going to get really specific since it is well documented that the Electoral College distorts the vote. It already cost Gore the presidency in 2000. Yet its antidemocratic (or even antirepublican since a republic requires free and fair elections) nature is not being addressed.

Let's say I voted for Hillary Clinton, which would have increased he popular vote victory. But unless she got one more vote than Trump, she still would have lost my jurisdiction. That's because the electoral college is winner take all in a state. Toss in she would have had to have done the same in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to have had a chance of winning. Yes, she needed the electoral votes in all three of those states to have won.

You can call me whatever the fuck you want, but the system is in dire need of repair especially if you are vaguely familiar with what the Electoral College is supposed to do (hint--Trump shouldn't be president and you can't make claims of foreign influence, see Federalist Paper 68).

But it doesn't.

Let's toss in that Wisconsin was ignored by the Clinton Campaign. Likewise her campaign neglected Michigan. I saw an extreme overconfidence in the Clinton campaign that she "couldn't lose". Which she didn't if the popular vote actually meant something.

BTW, I wasn't voting against anything. I was voting for a candidate I saw actually discussing issues and not running on a platform that she wasn't Trump and was a woman. It's campaigning that wins elections: not trying to scare the piss out of people.

Likewise, we need to work on campaign and election reform: not use insults.
You lost the argument when you started attacking people based on them somehow being Russian spies.

See also:

• How Clinton lost Michigan — and blew the election - POLITICO
• Ex-DNC aide hits back hard at Clinton, says her campaign ignored data on Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin 
• How Clinton lost 'blue wall' states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin

Yes, the Electoral College is a Constitutional Creation, but the Constitution has been amended.

I think the real issue isn't can the Electoral College be changed or abolished, but WHY hasn't it been abolished.  It has already been changed by the 12th Amendment, which means that change is indeed possible.

In case you need to have proof for how this really happened.

The process of states appointing senators was replaced by direct election by the 17th Amendment.

On the other hand, there is more talk about spurious "Russian influence" leading to Trump being president than actual discussion of the electoral college and how it distorts the results of the vote.

On the other hand, the reason the 17th Amendment was adopted was that there was media outcry about the corruption surrounding the appointment of Senators, especially after William A. Clark's bribing of the Montana State legislature came to light.

On the other hand, any discussion of the failures of the electoral college seem to be arcane or on blogs like this one. It is not the stuff the media feeds upon.

It is better to portray the US populace as being fools who would have elected Trump than to point out his victory was not from the democratic process. Instead it came from an arcane institution which few people understand.

The real issue isn't can it be changed, since it has been changed in the past. No, the real issue is can popular opinion be swayed in such a way that the system IS changed.


See Also:

• Why the fuck do we have the electoral college anyway? Let’s discuss this shit show
• The Electoral College is Profoundly Undemocratic By Design 
• Trump owes his victory to America’s unique Electoral College system
• How the Electoral College Rigged the Election for Donald Trump
• The Electoral College effect — in 3 cool charts
• America's Unique and Controversial Electoral College  
• 9 Things You May Not Know About the Electoral College
• Hillary Clinton’s Popular-Vote Victory Is Unprecedented—and Still Growing
• Why Electoral College wins are bigger than popular vote ones
• Hillary Clinton's Lead Is Greater Than Multiple Former Presidents'
• Hillary Clinton's popular vote margin is meaningless in every way (except pithy tweets)

What exactly IS a wasted vote

If someone loses with nearly 3 million more popular votes than her opponent, would one more vote really have made a difference?

Despite what the mass, mainstream media would like to have people believe: my decision to vote for Jill Stein was not totally based on Hillary Clinton being the "Democratic party" nominee.

First off, Bernie Sanders' running in the primary showed that process to be a sham. Not that I couldn't have guessed since the primaries were pretty much settled by the time I could vote in them. My critique of that system would be another post in and of itself.

There are other issues in the system of US elections which show it is neither a democracy or a republic. And threatening to overthrow the government shows one doesn't believe in either system. Again, a whole different post.

Now I see people like Chuck Schumer and Joe Liberman applauding Trump's decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem: Can I support the Democratic party if it wants to prop up the REAL rogue Middle Eastern State?

I support the Palestinian right of return, which is sanctioned by international law. Yet, the two US parties have failed to do anything about this issue.

Voting for Clinton based solely on the fact that she was a woman and not Trump would have been a protest vote. Instead, I saw the possibility of Clinton having a landslide victory against Trump as a reason to vote for a party I truly supported.

And she won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, which is not an insignificant number. The fact that was the case, but is buried behind "Russian interference" in the US election makes me sad. That is the only drawback to having voted the way I did.

The two party system has a lock on the US political climate to the point that those of us with alternative opinions are shut out of the debate.

No, my one vote was not wasted, but I believe it would have really been wasted had I voted for one of the duopoly candidates.


See Also

• Why the fuck do we have the electoral college anyway? Let’s discuss this shit show
• The Electoral College is Profoundly Undemocratic By Design 
• Trump owes his victory to America’s unique Electoral College system
• How the Electoral College Rigged the Election for Donald Trump
• The Electoral College effect — in 3 cool charts
• America's Unique and Controversial Electoral College  
• 9 Things You May Not Know About the Electoral College
• Hillary Clinton’s Popular-Vote Victory Is Unprecedented—and Still Growing
• Why Electoral College wins are bigger than popular vote ones
• Hillary Clinton's Lead Is Greater Than Multiple Former Presidents'
• Hillary Clinton's popular vote margin is meaningless in every way (except pithy tweets)

Direct Election of U.S. Senators, The Electoral College, and republicanism.

For those of you who still keep harping on "republic, not a democracy" despite both systems having the characteristic of choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections.

 The Constitution not only provided for what would become the electoral college; it also made it so that senators were elected by state legislatures, not popularly elected. Getting rid of that provision was unlike the electoral college in that it went away quickly with the 17th Amendment, which brought about the direct election of senators.

Maybe that was because the appointment system was much more obvious in its abuse.

William A. Clark was an American politician and entrepreneur, involved with mining, banking, and railroads. Although one could argue that calling him a politician was a bit of a stretch. That's because Clark's long-standing dream of becoming a United States Senator resulted in scandal in 1899 when it was revealed that he bribed members of the Montana State Legislature in return for their votes.

Clark handed out envelopes with anywhere from $1,000-$3,000 dollars to the state legislators during the legislative session where he was appointed senator. According to the US Senate report on the investigation into this matter:

On April 23, 1900, after hearing extensive testimony from ninety-six witnesses, the committee returned a report unanimously concluding that William Clark was not entitled to his seat. The testimony detailed a dazzling list of bribes ranging from $240 to $100,000. In a high-pressure, well-organized scheme coordinated by Clark's son, Clark's agents had paid mortgages, purchased ranches, paid debts, financed banks, and blatantly presented envelopes of cash to legislators.

Clark's response in regard to his bribery of the Montana legislature is supposed to have been, "I never bought a man who wasn't for sale."

Bottom line was that there was a sense that senatorial elections were "bought and sold", changing hands for favours and sums of money rather than because of the competence of the candidate. Between 1857 and 1900, the Senate investigated three elections over corruption, a number that included the investigation of Clark.

The Electoral college is much more problematic in that most people don't understand it and how it distorts the electoral process. Distortion of the elections from being free and fair means that one can't really argue that  the electoral college is somehow a "republican institution". If anything, republicanism would require its abolition.

And it can be done since senators are no longer appointed by the states. The Seventeenth Amendment (Amendment XVII) to the United States Constitution changed that and established the popular election of United States Senators by the people of the states. The amendment supersedes Article I, §3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, under which senators were elected by state legislatures. It also alters the procedure for filling vacancies in the Senate, allowing for state legislatures to permit their governors to make temporary appointments until a special election can be held.

The Constitution can be amended and changed to go with the times. It's time the electoral college went the way of legislators choosing senators.

See Also

• Why the fuck do we have the electoral college anyway? Let’s discuss this shit show
• The Electoral College is Profoundly Undemocratic By Design 
• Trump owes his victory to America’s unique Electoral College system
• How the Electoral College Rigged the Election for Donald Trump
• The Electoral College effect — in 3 cool charts
• America's Unique and Controversial Electoral College  
• 9 Things You May Not Know About the Electoral College
• Hillary Clinton’s Popular-Vote Victory Is Unprecedented—and Still Growing
• Why Electoral College wins are bigger than popular vote ones
• Hillary Clinton's Lead Is Greater Than Multiple Former Presidents'
• Hillary Clinton's popular vote margin is meaningless in every way (except pithy tweets)

Good resources on the electoral college and how it distorts the vote.

The first one is this report from the Pew Charitable trust on how the Electoral College distorts the

vote.

The second is this map at 270towin.com which demonstrates that Green voters did not sway the election.  Yes, I could have wasted my vote on Clinton adding to her popular vote victory, but it would have done fuck all in the long run other than piss me off.

The lesson of Bernie Sanders was the US system of elections is anything but free and fair, which means the US is neither a democracy or a republic.

FairVote has a really good section on the Electoral College and how it does none of the things it is claimed to do.  It doesn't give the smaller states any equality and it doesn't create a national president. In fact, the 2016 campaign was pretty much in 4 states!

And let's not forget that the Electoral College was to prevent incompetents from being president as well as foreign powers somehow influencing the election.

Seriously, the Electoral College needs to go along with a lot of other electoral reforms before you can say this is a republic or a democracy.

The US is neither a republic nor a democracy

If free and fair elections on a secret ballot are one of the criteria for both systems.

Likewise, five million votes separated Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in the popular vote during the 2012 election. It would be a stretch to call the 2012 presidential election a particularly close one with a margin that large. But because of the peculiarities of the Electoral College, a shift in just three hundred thousand votes in four states would have made Romney, rather than Obama, the president. Similarly John Kerry would have defeated George Bush in the Electoral College with a shift of fewer than a hundred thousand votes in Ohio.

I want to post these results since there are people who claim to be "constitutional conservatives" who like the electoral college. I wonder how they can tolerate it when results like the one above are the norm in this system?

The only real reason it continues to exist is that it allows the duopoly ("Republicans" and "Democrats") to control the system. In fact, most electoral reforms would cut into the duopoly's system of control, which is why election reform and voting rights aren't high on the agenda.

So, when you think that the electoral college is somehow "good", just remember how much it distorts the vote.  It works both ways.  In fact, this distortion is more disturbing to me than the 2016 result was, but notice that no one talks about how the distortion of presidential election results is common in US politics.

Even among the "constitutional conservatives" who defend this bullshit.

I should also add that sham elections which are elections that are without any purpose or significance and meant purely for show are a feature of dictatorships. These elections may have choices, but they are meaningless choices which do not truly express popular opinion.  These type of elections are meant to try and establish a sense of legitimacy for an illegitimate government.

Given the results of the electoral college in distorting the popular vote, or totally negating it, one truly has to wonder why people try to establish a false distinction between republics and democracies other than many republics (e.g., USSR, German Democratic Republic, The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, or Democratic Republic of Congo) are totalitarian states.

In fact, tolerating sham elections and a false democracy/republic ends up creating an oligarchy.

And you can't have either a democracy or a republic without free and fair elections on a secret ballot.

What is the difference between a Republic and a Democracy? (Part II)

Democracy cannot consist solely of elections that are nearly always fictitious and managed by rich landowners and professional politicians.

— Che Guevara, 1961

How the founders imagined a republic to work.

Part one was sort of a trick question since both systems embody these rules. It is non-sensical to try and distinguish between these systems in modern times.

This wasn't always the case as the Founders of the United States often criticised democracy, which in their time tended to specifically mean direct democracy, often without the protection of a constitution enshrining basic rights. James Madison argued, especially in The Federalist No. 10, that what distinguished a democracy from a republic was that the former became weaker as it got larger and suffered more violently from the effects of faction, whereas a republic could get stronger as it got larger and combats faction by its very structure.

The founders equated "democracy" with what we would call "anarchy", but they were working with ideals, not realities. 

What was critical to the American version of a republic, according to John Adams, was that the government be "bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend."  The rule of law is the concept where the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens which was the important factor in adopting the US Constitution.

The problem is that the founders didn't really understand republics, or perhaps were too fond of idealising them. The French philosopher who influenced the founders, Montesquieu, classified both democracies, where all the people have a share in rule, and aristocracies, where only some of the people rule, as republican forms of government in his "The Spirit of the Laws". Montesquieu was combining two very different forms of government into his concept of a republic.

This discussion should have started with the disclaimer that the modern type of "republic" itself is different from any type of state found in the classical world, or during the the concept bandied about during "the Enlightenment". The most important thing about real classical republics, they were either conquered by empires or became ones themselves. This becomes important in refuting Federalist #10: republics are not inherently stable, which was demonstrated in post-revolutionary France (the First Republic).

The reality: "We are not ze democracie, We are ze republique!"

The French demonstrated that the founders concept of republics was a ungrounded in fact at roughly the same time the Constitution was adopted.  Despite a strong guarantee of rights, the Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen de 1789, the First French Republic deteriorated into the Terror and then the rule of Napoleon Bonaparte.

Another point, The term republic originated from the writers of the Renaissance as a descriptive term for states that were not monarchies, which gives a lot of latitude. On the other hand, now one can have a constitutional monarchy that is a democracy. This is important since Democracy comes from the Greek: δημοκρατία , Demokratía, which is literally "rule of the commoners". Democracy in modern usage, is a system of government in which the citizens exercise power directly or elect representatives from among themselves to form a governing body, such as a parliament. I think a lot of people who try to differentiate between democracy and republic are really thinking of oligarchy, which is indeed neither system.

So, republics turn out to be more prone to problems  despite the founders' beliefs as a comparative study of US, French, and British history post 1789 demonstrates. And democracies tend to be far more stable than the founders believed.

The upshot is that the modern definition of a republic (from Latin: res publica, "public matter") is a sovereign state which is organized with a form of government in which power resides in elected individuals representing the citizen body and government leaders exercise power according to the rule of law. Presently, the term "republic" commonly means a system of government which derives its power from the people rather than from another basis, such as heredity or divine right. But it can even be dangerous to assume a something calling itself a republic, or democracy, truly is one (e.g., Democratic People's Republic of Korea or Democratic Republic of Congo, which both happen to be dictatorships).

While hereditary and divine right were once the defining factor in monarchies, they no longer are. United Kingdom, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Scandinavian countries, Thailand, Japan and Bhutan turned powerful monarchs into constitutional monarchs with limited or, often gradually, merely symbolic roles. In other countries, the monarchy was abolished along with the aristocratic system (as in France, China, Russia, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Italy, Greece and Egypt). An elected president, with or without significant powers, became the head of state in these countries. In other words, Constitutional Monarchies tend to be democratic.

If there is any real advantage to a republic, it would have to be that it can eventually evolve.  But one has to be careful how it evolves as the French and US examples have shown.  The French revolution produced a republic that was highly factionalised and unstable.  France's transition to democracy has been a rough road. The US also has its own problems, which includes some people believing there is a "right to rebellion", which is false (US Constitution, Article III, Section iii).[1]

Likewise, the US is ridden with factionalism which can hinder governmental function.  I find it interesting that people who try to make a difference between republic and democracy usually tend to be the ones that support a crippling factionalism. In fact, I find the people who try to make that distinction don't support true republics or democracies, but are more interested in an autocratic system.

Perhaps this shows where their difference comes since the people who wish to hinder government by non-funding parrot the phrase that there is a difference between a republic and a democracy.  They are willing to stop governmental function.  On the other hand, Parliamentary democracies dissolve when they cannot pass spending bills since  in the Westminster parliamentary systems the defeat of a supply bill (one that concerns the spending of money) is seen to automatically require the government to either resign or ask for a new election, much like a no-confidence vote. A government in a Westminster system that cannot spend money is hamstrung,  which also called loss of supply.

Anyway, I worry whenever anyone tries to make a distinction between these two systems since there should be none in practise.  I would add that people who do try to make that distinction are aware of the anti-democratic nature of the US system and are comfortable with it. We should not end up with oligarchy pretending to be a republic.

But a country cannot and should not enforce political systems on others that it does not implement at home. The US needs to start living up to its self image as a democratic-republic.

[1] Which means the proper "threeper" symbol should be "III.iii" for that article and to show they are not patriots following the constitution, but people being seditious and acting unconstitutionally.

What is the difference between a Republic and a Democracy? (Part I)

I'm going to start this off in two parts because I want people's opinion on which of these systems embody the following principles?

1.  A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections; 
2.  The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life; 
3.  Protection of the human rights of all citizens, and    
4.  A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens.

The rest of this will come in a later post.

Reality Check!

The Atlantic came up with a piece titled Owning Guns Doesn't Preserve Freedom which basically backs up what I have been saying about personal guns protecting freedom being rubbish. After all, the Iraquis had loads of guns. And heavily-armed Yemen (54.8) and Saudi Arabia (35.0) remain among the most repressive countries in the world (Yes, Orlon, I know this stuff is hard for you to understand, but that never stops you from making idiotic comments).

 The article points out that:

A quick scan through the list continues the point. Chile (10.7) comes in with the same arms rate as Venezuela, but the nations present starkly divergent civil freedoms. Russia (8.9) is slightly more armed than Ireland (8.6). The Netherlands (3.9) is on par, as far as weapons go, with oppressive Turkmenistan (3.8). Israel and Georgia see the same arms rate as Iran and Belarus and yet exist on opposite ends of Freedom House's rank.

The best quote:

"This relationship between gun rates and [democracy] isn't based upon social science - it's based upon philosophy," said Aaron Karp, a political science professor at Old Dominion University and one of the Small Arms Survey's senior consultants. "Part of the reason why people who are advocates of individual gun rights tend to be opposed to social science is that they're not comfortable with it." 

And while you are reading that article, check out the related Great Gun Gobbledygook: The Paradox of Second Amendment Hardliners:

In the current debate over gun control, the pro-gun lobby has an ace card up its sleeve: We need weapons to prevent government tyranny, they say. These self-styled champions of liberty see guns as the ultimate insurance policy to protect the Constitution. The problem is that most of those making this argument also strongly support a massive U.S. military -- exactly the behemoth we must be armed against. It's the great gun gobbledygook.

The irony isn't lost on me that the Second Amendment was supposed to protect against a large, standing military. On the other hand, the historically ignorant can be led.

BAAHHHHH!BAAHHHHH!BAAHHHHH!BAAHHHHH!BAAHHHHH!