Rynar wrote:
DFK!, the answer from the second stems from the answer to the first. If you won't answer the first, then quit badgering him about the answer to the second.
I'll ask for whatever clarification I please, and it still won't be badgering.
RangerDave wrote:
DFK! wrote:
RangerDave wrote:
... at least give me an idea of how/where you formed that opinion?
The opinion that the meanings differ, or the opinion that we aren't what you believe we are?
/em confused
I was referring to the former, I think, but I'll go with both for the hell of it.
Alright.
Rather than look at what you're asserting or assuming, let's look at what I'm asserting or assuming. Let's please note that I'm using little-R's and little-D's on purpose here.
1) That the terms "Representative Democracy" and "Representative Republic" both "exist" and "mean different things."
2) That the former indicates a government where representatives are elected, but serve functionally as proxies of the people, and that the latter indicates a government where representatives are elected, but function not as proxies but as agents of the people.
3) That the US, as it was created/intended would fall under the latter, and that today it functions as the former.
4) That these points are not congruent with your statements/beliefs.
Now, those things itemized, I think I can explain my reasoning. In no particular order:
The term "representative republic," as I understand it, doesn't formally exist. It isn't to be found with a dictionary.com search. Given the ideals of republicanism, which is to say that a) the government is not headed by a monarch, b) it is not a total democracy, in that not all societal members are citizens and/or suffrage is not universal, and c) those with suffrage elect people to organize and administrate their country (or other body, but for the purposes here I'll assume we're speaking to a national level), and as such those organizers and administrators must have the best interests of the nation at heart; I believe term is a correct application of two other terms into a whole. If anything, it's relatively redundant; however, I believe it is a more appropriate description of our original nation for reasons I'm getting to.
"Representative Democracy," on the other hand, does formally exist. It was coined, in fact, by one of our nation's founding fathers and at the time was a relatively original idea. It stood out, particularly, in contrast to the idea of
direct democracy, in which all members of society were citizens or could vote (ie suffrage was universal). The original US did not have universal suffrage, protected several national-level political positions from direct election, and had a large number of appointed positions serving lifetime roles, to prevent the sway of the population. Furthermore, without modern-day communications and polling, representatives had to much more attuned to their
local constituents, rather than the population as a whole.
The original US, then, successfully encapsulated the core ideals of republicanism. In contrast, we have the modern US, which has moved dramatically toward, if not direct democracy, then a democratization overall. Senators, formerly representing states and appointed by state legislature, are now directly elected by the people of the state. Suffrage is universal, with zero requirements to vote beyond citizenship. The will of the overall public, thanks to modern communications, is often considered over the will of the local district; this effectively makes all representatives national representatives, instead of local ones. Appointed positions are often judged on a public stage, and the "will of the people" is touted about those appointments. The electoral college has been for years been bandied about as something to be demolished, with a directly elected majoritarian vote taken instead. All of these things are moves from republican ideals toward democratic ones.
Therefore, a stamp of the modern country as somehow "democratic" is appropriate, but the stamp of the original country as a "republic" is also appropriate. If so, the only remaining item is the "representative." This remains for both terms because: 1) it's correct, and 2) it helps distinguish the government as a non-monarchal system.
Effectively, you'll see that I've agreed, in the end and in part, with your characterization of the US as a "Representative Democracy." The key issue I have is the implied indication that it has
always been one. This implication comes across from your earlier list of itemized (in Roman numerals) assumptions; this list indicated that it was the balancing of [ii] and [iii] that occur, and thus implied it was merely an issue-by-issue basis that changes how politicians judge issues. Instead, it is the democratization of things that has changed how politicians judge issues, by ironically freeing them from accountability and tying them to the national stage at the same time.
So, why all the clarifying and "badgering" and "semantic" discussions? Because asking the poll question as you did doesn't tell us much. Furthermore, based upon my supposed reasons for you asking it, I decided I'd rather force a discussion about your assumptions, given that the poll itself is invalid for the conclusion you're attempting to reach.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
