america was founded a free republic not democracy

[texas grass]

i want everyones take on why we should be a democracy when we were a FREE REPUBLIC and our forefathers foretold how bad democracy is. and another thing thats bad about it is mob rules(51% rules 49% of the people). that is not how america was founded. from what i have seen democracy are just as bad as socialist communist. it was stalin that said democracys are a perfect merge between corparate interest and the state.

and if you think we were founded a democracy prove it and post your findings

im getting sick of people saying if you dont like america then get out or you need to abide by our new rules. when in reality its those people that are destroying america

our country was the only one founded the way it was and gave rights to the citizens and now we dont have that right. the police have the right to harrass you torturing is ok and all this other crap that sould not be allowed.

texas grass Reviewed by texas grass on 02-13-2008. america was founded a free republic not democracy i want everyones take on why we should be a democracy when we were a FREE REPUBLIC and our forefathers foretold how bad democracy is. and another thing thats bad about it is mob rules(51% rules 49% of the people). that is not how america was founded. from what i have seen democracy are just as bad as socialist communist. it was stalin that said democracys are a perfect merge between corparate interest and the state. and if you think we were founded a democracy prove it and post your findings Rating: 5

[Rusty Trichome]

another thing thats bad about it is mob rules(51% rules 49% of the people).

Not always the case. Sometimes the vote is 75% - 25%. Is someone perhaps tired of being on the short end of the stick? Curious what rights have been denied to you, or that you think are due?

As a "great" American once said..."the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." (Kirk: Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan, 1982)
Not too sure Stalin would be the one I look to for info on democracies.
New or old, rules are still rules.

Democracy:
In political theory, Democracy describes a small number of related forms of government and also a political philosophy. A common feature of democracy as currently understood and practiced is competitive elections. Competitive elections are usually seen to require freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and some degree of rule of law. Civilian control of the military is often seen as necessary to prevent military dictatorship and interference with political affairs. In some countries, democracy is based on the philosophical principle of equal rights.
Democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[dragonrider]

i want everyones take on why we should be a democracy when we were a FREE REPUBLIC

I'm not sure what the distinction is that you are making between a republic and a democracy. Isn't a republic a form of a democracy? A democracy is a form of governemnt characterized by elections, and a republic is a form of a democracy in which elections select representatives that represent the elctorate, I think. Please correct me if that is not right. So what are you saying is the problem?

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

The most prevalent form of democracy is called "liberal democracy". No need to cross-referrence this with our common perception of "Liberalism", as many consveratives would find many of their views to be the same as Classical Liberalism. I found, upon taking political science, that Classical Liberalism and Conservatism take forms that are far from the pseudo representations we see today. I personally like Classical Liberalism the best, but there are great areas of all philosophies to utilize of course.

Anywho, liberal democracy utilizes the the "first past the post" method of majority representation. Hence, like texas said, 51% can end up supressing the rights of the other 49%. This is why a lot of places are toying with the idea of reforming their systems to one of proportional representation. I forget all the specifics, as it's been over a year for me since taking political science, but the system basically goes like this:


50% + 1 or more leads to victory, as in classic liberal democracy. However, the victor in the system of proportional representation only gets exactly 50% + 1. If they get, say, 76%, then 26% of their votes ( -1 ) would go to the second place winner. The second place winner would then have their excess votes alotted to the third place winner, and so forth. This basically ensures that the rights of minorities recieve proportional representation when implementing legislation, as the name suggests.
There is more to it, but as I said my memory is too rusty to describe the rest.


A couple years ago my province had our election and we voted on having a reform to PR. The vote lost by a narrow margin, and I was one of the people who voted against it. I was, however, one of many who didn't fully understand the system since it does get a bit complicated. After studying it thoroughly in political science though, I find the system preferrable and wish I had voted the other way.

[texas grass]

for instance in a free republic marijuana cant be illegal because a select few want it illegal, making me wear a seatbelt, not having the right to question the law. our country was not founded so afew or a majority can take away our freedoms because they want to or its their agenda too. it is your right to do things in a free republic. you dont have the rights in a democracy you have to earn privilages like driving and so on, now days its a privilage to drive not our right. yes we have always elected a leader and we set restrictions on them and around 100 yrs ago we started to preach about democracys and started to give our true american government away like the right to print money, stay out of our lives, foreign policy changed ect ect ect

[dragonrider]

for instance in a free republic marijuana cant be illegal because a select few want it illegal, making me wear a seatbelt, not having the right to question the law. our country was not founded so afew or a majority can take away our freedoms because they want to or its their agenda too. it is your right to do things in a free republic. you dont have the rights in a democracy you have to earn privilages like driving and so on, now days its a privilage to drive not our right. yes we have always elected a leader and we set restrictions on them and around 100 yrs ago we started to preach about democracys and started to give our true american government away like the right to print money, stay out of our lives, foreign policy changed ect ect ect

I'm not sure if what you are saying about the governemnt making laws about what you can or cannot do has anything to do with it being a free republic versus a democracy or vice versa. I don't think so.

The powers of the US government are not defined by what it is called (free republic, democracy, federation, bunch 'o crazies, klepotocracy, evil cabal, whatever), they are defined by the US Constitution. The laws restricting your freedoms are allowed by the Constitution. (Of course, someone will now say that they are NOT constittional, but that's a matter for the Supreme Court to decide, according to the Constitution.) The Constitution is what it is, so if you look at that set of laws and decide it's a democracy and not a free republic according to your definition, then that's your business, but it doesn't really change what the Constituion is.

[Beefer86]

Incorrect. Our country was founded as an indirect democracy via electoral college. By technicality the popular vote means nothing, and the electoral college makes the ultimate decision. Google the instances when the electoral college overrode the popular vote.

Its not always 51 triumphs 49, sometimes the 49 triumphs the 51 if the elector is feelin itchy. Or they just want to be different. No elector is bound by any obligation to vote for what the masses have.

[texas grass]

I'm not sure if what you are saying about the governemnt making laws about what you can or cannot do has anything to do with it being a free republic versus a democracy or vice versa. I don't think so.

The powers of the US government are not defined by what it is called (free republic, democracy, federation, bunch 'o crazies, klepotocracy, evil cabal, whatever), they are defined by the US Constitution. The laws restricting your freedoms are allowed by the Constitution. (Of course, someone will now say that they are NOT constittional, but that's a matter for the Supreme Court to decide, according to the Constitution.) The Constitution is what it is, so if you look at that set of laws and decide it's a democracy and not a free republic according to your definition, then that's your business, but it doesn't really change what the Constituion is.

as we were founded i had the right to put things in my body weather bad or not it was my right. now there a bunch of natural things banned

i have the right to teach my kid the way i want. now days you cant spank your kid without government steping in

in a free republic the supreme court CANNOT change the constitution in a democracy they can. and generally when you change the constitution like that you are doing it for political reasons or for $$$



and still no one has shown me that we were founded a democracy, but just saying we are one

[texas grass]

Incorrect. Our country was founded as an indirect democracy via electoral college. By technicality the popular vote means nothing, and the electoral college makes the ultimate decision. Google the instances when the electoral college overrode the popular vote.

Its not always 51 triumphs 49, sometimes the 49 triumphs the 51 if the elector is feelin itchy. Or they just want to be different. No elector is bound by any obligation to vote for what the masses have.

Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice-President. Ratified 6/15/1804. Note History The Electoral College

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.


the electorial college system was first ratified in 1804 and first tried in 1796 and showed major complications

our country was founded/declared in 1776 and most of the bill of rights and the first 10 amendments to the people came in 1791

[dragonrider]

as we were founded i had the right to put things in my body weather bad or not it was my right. now there a bunch of natural things banned

i have the right to teach my kid the way i want. now days you cant spank your kid without government steping in

in a free republic the supreme court CANNOT change the constitution in a democracy they can. and generally when you change the constitution like that you are doing it for political reasons or for $$$



and still no one has shown me that we were founded a democracy, but just saying we are one

I have a feeling this is a discussion going nowhere. My point was that it doesn't matter what you call it, the form of government is defined by the Constitution, not by what it is called. I'm not the one calling it one thing or another, you are, and I am just trying to figure out what you mean. It doesn't matter to me what it is called --- you call it whatever you want, and I'll just call it the US govenrment.

I was trying to respond to when you said, "If you think we were founded a democracy prove it and post your findings." My point is that our founding document is the US Constitution, not some kind of declaration that "we are a democracy" or "we are a free republic." We are still working from the same set of rules, with whatever ammendments have been added over time, so I would say we are still operating under the same form of government that we were founded under, whatever you want to call it.