It's not ridiculous. It's obvious to those who study history and politics.

So which one is Canada?

Canada is not a republic because we have a queen. We are a constitutional monarchy.

Republic. The only democracy in history was Athens. The West adopted the Roman Republic model and adapted that.

See? The dichotomy is not only unhelpful, it also causes confusion.

Hey TrPrado, how's freshman year treating you?

Well, since the people vote for representatives and not directly on the policies, there is a little truth in there, if someone words his statement for this case, especially when the representatives need some prerequisites. But the best definition in my opinion is still 'indirect democracy', so it's mostly wordplay.

But yeah, I know some people here in Austria having the opinion "no Democracy but Republic", used for (nearly) all modern Democracies.

Woah TrPrado. The Imperial Senate in Star Wars was a democracy. Shit they even let Jar Jar have equal representation

Representation lol

I imagine that the people who say that the US is not a democracy are the same people who insist that a banana is a herb and that peanuts are not nuts.

Monarchy = Has a monarch
Republic = Does not have a monarch

The new American definition of republic is useless. What use is there in saying you're not a pure direct democracy? No one is. It serves no purpose and deviates greatly from the more useful definition.

@Octavious

you mean the informed?

and I know some people are stingy assholes who correct others unnecessarily, but in a specific field, the ACTUAL definition is fairly important.

republic definition. A form of government in which power is explicitly vested in the people, who in turn exercise their power through elected representatives. Today, the terms republic and democracy are virtually interchangeable, but historically the two differed.

it's like calling any given rectangle a square. sometimes true, not always

"virtually" is the key take away

but yeah people who correct that in every day usage 99/100 times are assholes, of the stingy variety

There is a dichotomy between Republic and Monarchy.

Or between Democracy and Tyranny.

However Democracy and Republic are not mutually exclusive terms.

Im not sure it matters insofar as we have a country which has checks and balances and **shock and awe*** both political parties have power optimally

Super majorities in US politics have been creepy the last few decades.

"both political parties have power optimally"

and that's observed by... 62% of Americans in polls supporting Gary Johnson at the debate, but him still not being allowed??

by our ONLY 2 real options being a talking narcissistic sexist blob of an amoeba, and a thoroughly corrupt remorseless harpie??

by the constant scandals coming out over the last half of a century???

The US is a Republic, not a Democracy. That's not to say we don't use democratic methods, but the definition (as taught in American schools, at least) of a Democracy is a government where people vote directly on the law.

@Merirosvo and your op. We do not have this distinction in Ireland, and i'd imagine europe more generally.

We are a Republic, and what those republican ideals mean varies from person to person. But in the general sense, it means the ideals of the constitution. But it tends to also hark back to the French revolution's ideal of Liberty, Fraternity, Equality. (which also influenced US independence)

And the equality is an important one when it comes to comparing to Monarchy, (which we had in Ireland as the United Kingdom used to include a personal union of the Kingdom of Ireland and the Kingdoms of England and Scotland... if i'm getting my Kingdoms right...) Republic can mean NOT a Monarchy, and thus, all people are equal before the law, and there is no Monarch who is above everyone else.

Again in this case I'd take you to the historical models and context. The United States is system is based on Rome as well as the context. While removing a monarch from the equation and moving some degree of accountability to the citizens, every republic feared and still fears excessive amounts of control being given to citizens. Thus those who crafted post-monarchist governments or governments which increasingly relied less on monarchs created systems of control and elitism. While there was a recognized power in and through the public (thus the etymology of "republic" being "the public thing"), there was also the idea that a more qualified leadership should also be ensued. Large portions of the public, while important in justifying the power of rulers, couldn't tell you a thing about ruling a country. In a democracy, the latter point is ignored. This worked well in Athens because they ran a small state of a single city renowned for intellectualism. These luxuries are not affordable universally. Thus, the distinction is not insignificant.

Interesting. So you dont vote on amendments at the state level? Isnt weed legal in some states for example cheech?

@Chaqa, in common parlance, a democracy means either a direct democracy as you describe or the modern representative democracy which we have in the west. This as defined not by your idiotic american schools, but by the common usage of the people.

Since we have very few direct democracies in the world today, we usually talk about representative democracies. So even though it is not specific, the term usually refers to the kind of voting and representation that we have in Ireland, or the UK. And that you have in the US...

It only becomes hazy when you look at the likes of China and Iran, which have elections for their rulers, but the party and/or theocratic council have to approve all the candidates. Thus you aren't necessarily represented by a person who you feel represents you, only by someone approved to represent you. (though i think China has more in common with the US than the US has with the UK or Ireland, given the lack of voter choice in the US so clearly highlighted by this year's election... Iran is further towards Theocratic rule, as despite having an elected President, the President is not in charge, and the Supreme leader is not elected, except once when the last one dies... )

Republics, because of the public nature, have the capacity to utilize democratic means when they fear certain contentions or it suits them well, but they are, undeniably, distinct in nature from what a democracy is on the whole.

"It only becomes hazy when you look at the likes of China and Iran, which have elections for their rulers, but the party and/or theocratic council have to approve all the candidates."
Western countries do this too. Superdelegates, parties which vote no confidence and oust their leader, party lists in certain countries, and so on.

"Iran is further towards Theocratic rule, as despite having an elected President, the President is not in charge, and the Supreme leader is not elected, except once when the last one dies..."
The people who elect the Supreme Leader are themselves elected, and Iran also has an elected legislature, which currently is in contention with the Supreme Leader on economic issues, and side with the President.

@TrPrado, I would have thought that the US is based more on the UK. Your president, though elected, has most of the same power that the British Monarch had when you gained independence (and the exact same thing is true of Ireland btw, which is why our President has less power, as it was based on a UK which had devolved a lot more power to the parliament) Likewise it owes a lot to the French revolution, and the ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity. 'All men are created equal' and all that stuff. Heavily influencing the ideals of the US declaration of independence - though i don't know how much of that fed into the spirit of the constitution.

@'This worked well in Athens because they ran a small state of a single city renowned for intellectualism. '

Athens on had about 10% of the population involved in the democracy. That is, you had to be a citizen, and about 1/3 families were citizens of Athens, meanwhile only adult males within each family could vote. So i suspect your characterisation is massively flawed to begin with.

There has never been a system where everyone got to have their say, and the power of the rulers was equally available to all.

@"Western countries do this too. Superdelegates, parties which vote no confidence and oust their leader, party lists in certain countries, and so on."

Yes, but party lists are more significant when you have a one-party state. IE all other parties are illegal. Or when you have a two-party state, IE third parties are a joke...

You most definitely overestimate the unity within China's Communist Party.