Hacker News Reader

Comment by platz | Hacker News Reader

Depends on what you mean by democracy. Suppose you get 100% voter participation through free and fair elections. Are you still sure that fails the definition of democracy? How hard is it to make that case?

What if the voters choose an outcome you just don't happen to like? Is that all of a sudden undemocratic?

View on HN

And if the majority of those voters are opposed to democracy itself, and vote for candidates who promise to take away votes from people they don't like, or establish a theocracy? "America isn't and shouldn't be a democracy" is a common Republican talking point. This has happened in Poland and Hungary and its darn close to happening in the United States.

Not sure what you’re implying with your statement about the Republican talking point. The point of the point is the U.S. was designed to be a Constitutional Republic which isn’t a democracy.

The Constitutional Republic is designed to protect the rights and freedoms of the individual via the Constitution and bill of rights. If by Democracy one is referring solely to majority rule, then protection against individual rights and freedom are lost.

The U.S. should fear the latter, not the former.

This is exactly the talking point I mean. It uses weasel words to trick people into believing that democracy is bad.

Saying "the US isn't a democracy, it's a constitutional republic", is like saying "Garfield isn't a cat, he's a cartoon and a vertebrate". None of these things are mutually exclusive.

Democracy: government where political power ultimately comes from the popular vote. The opposite of democracy is autocracy.

Republic: government where the state belongs to the people and is run for their benefit. The opposite of republic is monarchy.

Constitutional: government with ground rules for how the levers of power work that nobody is allowed to break. The opposite of constitutional government is absolute government.

You can have government on any of these axes. Being a constitutional republic doesn't preclude being a democracy. Contrast the United States and North Korea. Both are constitutional republics (fundamental law, no monarch), but one is democratic (all votes matter), and the other is autocratic (only one vote matters).

Democracy does NOT mean "absolute rule by a mere majority". Republicans lie and weasel to try to get people to think this so that they can say that democracy is bad and we should accept minority rule instead (aka, autocracy)

The United Stares is a constitutional republic and a representative democracy. The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy and a representative democracy. Democracy is not the opposite of a republic. Monarchy is.

True as long as the representative democracy doesn’t infringe on the individual’s constitutional rights. That’s where the democracy bit gives way to the judicial branch. Of coarse with a politicized court you’re right back to the ills of a democracy.

What you’re saying is still true in a constitutional monarchy. Being a republic or democracy doesn’t matter. Its the constitutional part that’s important.

Republic and Democracy are not exclusive. There is no such thing as "being republic or democracy". It's really simple:

Monarchy: yes king

Republic: no king

Democracy: yes votes

Autocracy: no votes

Constitutional: yes constitution

Absolute: no constitution

You can have these in any combination.

Monarchy is a democracy with one voter.

Indeed, the Constitution states that the form of government of the United States should be a republic. Thus it already provides for the "low information voter" problem by mediating the will of the voter through his or her representative.

Well that's quite a pickle to find oneself in, isn't it?

It's certainly possible to make an undemocratic decision democratically.

Consider holding a referendum that specified nobody who hadn't yet been born as of the referendum date would ever be allowed to vote.

It's a purposefully silly example (HN isn't for political debates!) but broadly, it's a democratically made self determination that reduces or precludes the ability to make democratic decisions in the future.

That's why I made sure to include "free and fair elections" in my description

And the current election would be both free and fair. It's the consequences that would be anything but.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com