Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwawaycities | Hacker News Reader

If people actually read the Federalist Papers then they’d have to stop referring to the US as a Democracy or a Constitutional Democracy and correctly refer to it as a Constitutional Republic.

The Federalist Papers outline exactly why the US Constitution established a Republic and why a Democracy was insufficient. However, rereading the Federalist Papers in light of the modern technology (instantaneous information & voting) I do believe their objections to Democracy would have been overcome they might have established a Democratic form of Government over a Republic.

View on HN

The text of Federalist 10 shows that this is not a useful distinction in our contemporary context. Madison defines the "republican principle" as majority rule, and further defines "pure democracy" as direct government by an assembly of the citizen body, i.e. Ancient Athenian Democracy, something which does not exist at any scale in the contemporary world. A republic, as Madison defines it, is one in which the citizen body elects representatives, who then carry on the work of government. In modern parlance we call this a representative democracy. Further, Madison emphasizes the vital importance of majority rule in a republic as a guard against faction, so much so that he call majority rule the "republican principle" as noted above.

The bottomline is that the essential features of what Madison calls a "republic" is what the contemporary world calls a "democracy" or more specifically a "representative democracy". Insisting on calling American government a republic and not a democracy, when Madison's definition matches what we think of as a representative democracy, just obfuscates what's being discussed.

>Insisting on calling American government a republic and not a democracy, when Madison's definition matches what we think of as a representative democracy, just obfuscates what's being discussed.

I’m not insisting, the US Constitution is the law of the land and establishes a Republican form of Government. The author(s) and advocates of the Constitution were very clear in their intent and rationale for creating a Republic and not a Democracy.

Sure words evolve but calling the US a democracy removes all meaning of the word and form of government - its not clear why anyone would even use Democracy to describe the US besides erroneously thinking elected Representatives relates to Democracy because their is a vote of some kind. Contemporary usage or not unless the Constitution is changed I’ll defer to the law of the land which expressly establishes a Republican form of government.

We're a democratic republic. We have some democratic elements, including direct elections of senators, representatives, governors, etc. But we don't directly vote on laws at the federal level.

The first political party in the U.S. was founded by Jefferson and Madison, and it was known as the Democratic-Republican Party.

Article IV, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government… -The US Constitution

The irony is James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, remakes on people confusing Republics with Democracies and it is just as true in our time as his…

I remark here only that it seems to owe its rise and prevalence chiefly to the confounding of a republic with a democracy… - Federalist Paper No. 14

Please correct me if I’m wrong but the word democracy does not appear once in the US Constitution, which would be a pretty big omission for the document that establishes the US form of Government and otherwise consistent with the Founding Father’s advocating for a Republic and against a Democracy and never once using the term Representative Democracy throughout the Federalist Papers.

Isn't it a matter of words changing meaning over time? Could it be that what James Madison called "democracy" corresponds to "direct democracy" in modern understanding and "republic" corresponds to "representative (indirect) democracy" in modern parlance?

If not, then what are the differences between republic described by Madison and representative democracy?

There is a difference between words changing over time (example: awful historically meaning full of awe and the modern usage meaning very bad) and changing a form of Government of the US that is codified in the US Constitution.

>If not, then what are the differences between republic described by Madison and representative democracy?

To try to answer your question, if we used “Representative Democracy” then the US and UK would both have the same form of government, a Representative Democracy, which in my opinion highlights why proper use of the terms is necessary.

The US is a Constitution Republic and the UK is a Constitution Monarch, at least according to the legal documents that establish their respective Governments.

Whether a Constitutional Republic or Constitutional Monarch, neither is a Democracy. Sure both having elections and voting of at least some kind, but the UK is not a Republic despite having a House of Commons with elected Members of Parliament.

Let’s turn this question around…in your opinion what is the difference between a Republic and a Democracy? If any Republic that holds elections of representatives do you simply classify both the UK and US Representative Democracies?

>in your opinion what is the difference between a Republic and a Democracy?

To keep things simple: democracy -> majority rule

republic -> majority rule + no inheritance of public offices (so no monarch)

Of course it can get more complicated than that - democracies can differ in terms of who can and cannot vote, freedom of press, how exactly the separation of powers is handled (or if the powers are separated at all), what method is used to distribute seats in the parliament, how much power is held by the president and how much is held by the prime minister etc.

By that definition US and UK are both (representative) democracies but of these two only the US is a republic and UK is a parliamentary ("constitutional" sounds pretty weird in this context given that there is no codified constitution) monarchy (while still being a democracy).

>To keep things simple: democracy -> majority rule

>By that definition US and UK are both (representative) democracies

I do not agree that majority rule is by itself the definition of democracy, but assuming arguendo for sake of keeping things simple, what in the US is majority rule? The US Constitution certainly doesn’t expressly establish majority rule, although it clearly establishes the US form of government is a Republic. The Constitution establishes 3 branches of Government. Executive, the President, is not elected by majority rule. Legislators, Representatives & Senators are not elected by majority rule. Judiciary, the Supreme Court Justices are not elected at all. Laws themselves are not majority rule rather a system of checks and balances of the 3 branches of Government guaranteed the Constitution.

>("constitutional" sounds pretty weird in this context given that there is no codified constitution) monarchy (while still being a democracy).

The UK does have a Constitution, it’s just not a single document like the US Constitution. It’s not exactly weird that the US Constitution isn’t the sole form of Constitution. In either case you being weird is immaterial to the UK being a Constitutional Monarchy.

We became a democratic republic after 1965. Before, we were just a republic with a few bells and whistles.

I'm not so sure. To get a purer form of democracy to function well, you need the voters to be well informed on so many different specialized topics while also carrying out their day jobs. With a republic, we can elect people to take on the day job of being specialized and well informed on the affairs of governing.

And if we've learned any lessons from the last decade of information technology, its promise to leave us all better informed seems to have been a false promise---or at least a very mixed bag sort of promise.

No my friend you are wrong.

I belice you referring to the famous quotation of Benjamin Franklin "A republic, if you can keep it".

The dichotomy in this quote is not republic or democracy but republic or monarchy.

" The source of this quotation is a journal kept by James McHenry (1753-1816) while he was a Maryland delegate to the Constitutional Convention. On the page where McHenry records the events of the last day of the convention, September 18, 1787, he wrote: “A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy – A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.” "

https://blogs.loc.gov/manuscripts/2022/01/a-republic-if-you-...

The United States is a democracy, it is also a republic. Those are not contradictory/mutually exclusive terms. If you believe they are, please provide your preferred definitions and citations.

As far as my citation, Ill defer to the US Constitution:

Article IV, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government

The establishment of a Republican form of Government wasn’t an accident. The word Democracy doesn’t appear in the Constitution once, that also is not an accident.

I’d recommend reading the Federalist Papers and understand why the Founding Father’s were against a Democracy and advocated for a Republic. Federalist Paper No. 14 written by Madison might be particularly helpful as he highlights how people wrongly confound Democracies with Republics.

All republics are democracies. People who say that it isn’t are contrasting representative democracy with direct democracy but “democracy” encompasses both. Leaving out “direct” is deceptive.

>All republics are democracies.

This is very basic civics. Republics and democracies are distinct styles of Government. Was the Roman Republic a Democracy in your eyes?

Essentially what you are saying is anywhere there is a vote or election that government is a democracy, and anywhere there are representatives that government is a representative democracy.

These are legal terms that have very specific definitions.

Take the UK which elects a Prime Minister and Memeber of Parliment does that make it a Representative Democracy in your opinion? Despite electing a Prime Minister and Members of Parliament the UK is neither a Democracy nor a Republic, nor a Representative Democracy for that matter.

There are two definitions of republic. One is power rests with public and their representatives, not a monarchy. The other is basically US form of government with elected representatives and president instead of monarch.

Government elected by people is the definition of democracy. You haven't given an alternate definition. Are you one of the people that think democracy requires direct democracy? That is just one form of democracy, representative democracy is another.

Electing member of parliament is exactly what makes UK a representative democracy. They aren't a republic because they have a monarch. The UK literally invented the represen

The UK is a Constitutional Monarch.

The US according to its own Constitution is a Republic.

> Government elected by people is the definition of democracy.

No, democracy is a term that has been around for over 2 thousand years (same with Republic).

Hopefully as you know Democracy originated in Greece. Notwithstanding your definition, Greece the creator of Democracy, did not even elect representatives/politicians, politicians were selected at random from the citizens in a process known as sortition.

On account of your definition of Democracy I think I’ll gracefully bow out of this conversation.

You are not looking at a computer, because a computer is a person who computes. You are not typing on a keyboard, because keys open locks and why they be in a board.

Words change their meanings over time, the definition of democracy has expanded with the invention of representative democracy. Enough that Athens wouldn’t be considered direct democracy today because of limited franchise.

BTW, it is more accurate to call UK a parliamentary monarchy. “Constitutional monarchy” is synonym but confusing they don’t have written constitution. If democracy means direct democracy, what is the similarity in government between parliamentary and republic called? It is called representative democracy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com