Republic vs. a Democracy.

[The Backlash Cometh]

It is strange at this level of the game to point out this significant issue. As most of you already know, the right-wing has been trying to justify their beliefs on the Constitution as it was written back in the day. Their attempts have been failing miserably so far. But there is one issue which may have some merit, and I was hoping someone would elaborate further on what I already know about it. This issue is how the Teabaggers and other extreme right-wings consider the USA as a Republic, and not a democracy. Their reasoning for this is simple. A Republic can be broken down into smaller segments (states rights) and as long as conservatives control the plutocracy in those states, they control the USA.

So, I thought I would like to understand this concept of Republic better, because it might help to figure out how they're convincing their voting plebes to support what is in essence a plutoarchy.

[Horse with no Name]

1. We have a republic.

http://lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

>>>snip
These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.

A Democracy

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man


>>>>snip
A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. We Have In Theory A Democratic Republic

A system of government where the people are governed through their elected leaders.

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. So we're both using the Republic, but for a different purpose.

Minorities and Liberal causes generally use the Republic to protect their rights from being overrun by prejudicial and discriminatory acts.

The right-wing, however, try to use the power of a Republic to control the direction of the USA through small, but motivated electorates?

Does that sound right?

[Horse with no Name]

9. Of course they are abusing the intention

That is what they do.
BUT in my studies of this, I have not noticed that states rights entered into this particular discussion. They were addressed elsewhere.

AUTHOR: Benjamin Franklin (1706–90)
QUOTATION: “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”
ATTRIBUTION: The response is attributed to BENJAMIN FRANKLIN—at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation—in the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention.

McHenry’s notes were first published in The American Historical Review, vol. 11, 1906, and the anecdote on p. 618 reads: “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.” When McHenry’s notes were included in The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, ed. Max Farrand, vol. 3, appendix A, p. 85 (1911, reprinted 1934), a footnote stated that the date this anecdote was written is uncertain.
SUBJECTS: Republic
WORKS: Benjamin Franklin Collection


This is the second time this week that I have totally recommended reading "A Republic, If you can Keep it" by Chief Justice Earl Warren.

It gives a wonderful understanding.

[The Backlash Cometh]

10. Thanks. I'll add it to my reading list.

I understand the concept of protecting the rights of a minority, but what it seems to be turning into is a combination of control by a minority, specifically, a minority of Republicans. A plutocracy and oligarchy = plutarchy.

[JaneQPublic]

23. That looks like a Ron Paul/Teabagger website

Go to its homepage:

http://lexrex.com/

It has links to the Tea Party Manifesto and Anti-"Obamacare" websites.

[Horse with no Name]

30. I didn't research the sites.

The information that I posted appears correct.

Now I cannot vouch for the interpretation of the information--nor did I look that deep.

However, since you pointed it out and it is important--will find an additional site to verify.

Thanks for the heads up.

[Horse with no Name]

31. Editing period expired. This is a teabagger site.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_difference_between_a_republic_and_a_democracy

Here is an additional site:
Democracy:

Invloves the government ruling and making laws for the "greater good" of all people, they may abolish personal rights in doing so.

Democracy is government by and for the people. They may or may not be republics--that is, government limited by constitution or charter.

The tricky part of "democracy" is defining "the people" and then deciding what counts as "by the people" and what counts as "for the people." In a sense, that could be considered the content of democratic practice.

Republic:
Involves the government using and abiding by the constitution heavily. Personal rights are respected and cannot be taken away. This helps to avoid tyranny and mobocracy (the majority makes laws and governs by passion, prejudice, or impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences).
Republics are the common and "standard" type of governments found today, not democracies, despite what many people (who may not know the definition of either) think.
Just as democracies may or may not be republics, republics may or may not be democracies.

The difference between Democracy and Republic:

Democracy and Republic are two forms of government which are distinguished by their treatment of the Minority, and the Individual, by the Majority.
In a Democracy, the Majority has unlimited power over the Minority. This system of government does not provide a legal safeguard of the rights of the Individual and the Minority. It has been referred to as "Majority over Man".
In a Republic, the Majority is Limited and constrained by a written Constitution which protects the rights of the Individual and the Minority. The purpose of a Republic form of government is to control the Majority and to protect the God-given, inalienable rights and liberty of the Individual.
The United States of America is founded as a Republic under the Constitution.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_difference_between_a_republic_and_a_democracy#ixzz1F02UZB2Y

[FBaggins]

2. A republic is a TYPE of democracy.

What the Founders wanted to avoid is what is now known as a direct democracy... which we don't have.

[Horse with no Name]

4. They are separate entities

from the above link

>>>This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual’s rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britain’s parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature--the elective body there being the House of Commons--and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.

In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. Examples were provided in the immediate post-1776 years by the legislatures of some of the States. In reaction against earlier royal tyranny, which had been exercised through oppressions by royal governors and judges of the new State governments, while the legislatures acted as if they were virtually omnipotent. There were no effective State Constitutions to limit the legislatures because most State governments were operating under mere Acts of their respective legislatures which were mislabelled "Constitutions." Neither the governors not the courts of the offending States were able to exercise any substantial and effective restraining influence upon the legislatures in defense of The Individual’s unalienable rights, when violated by legislative infringements. (Connecticut and Rhode Island continued under their old Charters for many years.) It was not until 1780 that the first genuine Republic through constitutionally limited government, was adopted by Massachusetts--next New Hampshire in 1784, other States later.

[JaneQPublic]

29. The website you cite looks to be a Libertarian/Teabagger website

Go to its homepage:

http://lexrex.com/

It has links to the Tea Party Manifesto and Anti-"Obamacare" websites.

[The Backlash Cometh]

7. If we had a direct democracy, Al Gore would have won in 2000.

Hands down.

[FBaggins]

11. True enough

Though that's not a good enough reason to change to one.

[The Backlash Cometh]

12. I'm fine with the Republic concept. I'm just saying, it's time that we

all get on the same page. I'm tired of hearing right-wingers saying they have to protect THEIR Republic. I can certainly see the day they will be in the minority and will need that protection, but I'm not in favor of the plutocracy that they're inspiring.

[Vehl]

15. yeah

Republicans do not realize that the "republic" has nothing to do with their "party" but is a form of government which the democrats and republicans both represent in equal measure.

The irony of ironies is that these so called "republicans" are the ones calling for nation wide bans on abortion and same sex marriages...a proposal directly opposed to the ideals they(republicans) supposedly represent! A bunch of hypocrites!

[Horse with no Name]

22. The *MOST* important aspect of a republic is being overlooked

It is simply--protection of the rights of a minority.

To prevent tyranny rule. You know, like the republicans do.

[Vehl]

35. exactly nt

[Horse with no Name]

25. Then in protecting "their republic"

The awesome responsibility that goes with is protecting the minority and gives it a voice. That is why the Constitution lays out filibusters, etc.

That is why EVERYTHING Scott Walker has done is antithetical to the Constitution.

It is also why the Constitution allows for peaceful demonstrations. Yet, rushco, et al are calling the protesters in Wisconsin "unamerican", when they are, by definition, doing EXACTLY what the founding fathers intended when the system gets out of whack.

This is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. It really is easy--but they just don't "get it".

The Constitution even lays out rights to fix that too. We just aren't there yet.

[Vehl]

13. Yes, but Direct democracy would not work in large nations, like the US

Even though it might have some advantages, the disadvantages of Direct Democracy are many. Especially in a country that is multi-cultural/ethnic...not to mention multi-ideological.

A democratic republic is the best way to govern large nations..doubly so when those nations tend to be also Multi Ethnic. The same goes for India, the largest Democracy in the world, with literally hundreds of languages(26 official languages!) and religions. Direct democracy would have resulted in the country splitting up into myriad pieces as Direct democracy cannot account for the different viewpoints of people..without allowing the majority to stomp the minority wishes. The State system used in America and India is a time tested and efficient system of democratic government,as a republic.

A good example of why Direct democracy fails would be Srilanka..where the one-man-one-vote version leads to governments which always represent the majority ethnic group and discriminate against the minorities.

[The Backlash Cometh]

14. I totally agree.

I just wanted to point out the obvious difference between the two.

[Vehl]

18. sure

I was making a generic comment. I knew that you were not implying that direct democracy is better.

[Old and In the Way]

40. We could change that idea of representitive democracy by modern technology

I think <caution: dangerous assumption ahead> currently the formula is 1 House of Rep = 300,000 voters? If so, we should increase the # of Reps by 10 (1=30,000 people). Make it a House of 4350 Representatives. Obviously, that'd be chaotic to continue with the present arrangement, so you'd have to change the whole political culture - decentralizing the organizational rules and transitioning to an on-line House.

In so doing, we keep 'em at home...in their district, where they belong. We have modern telecommunication that can give them tele-conferencing capabilities to connect and be "in session". That would have a side benefit of de-incentivize the buying of Congress from a corporate lobbyist standpoint -and make our Reps more accountable to their constituents by keeping them engaged in their community/district. The cost to implement such a secure network would be offset from the cost savings acquired by keeping them in the district (lots of DC overhead)plus a salary reset that puts them in a salary range commensurate to the average citizen makes in his district - a performance-based salary, if you will.

Internet/telecommunications should be used to revolutionize our democracy by increasing the voter's numerical representation, de-influencing the lobbyist/corporate agenda, and making their voter's Rep more accessible and accountable for their actions.

[Vehl]

42. I agree with most of what you say

However 4350 would be a really high number though.

[CanSocDem]

43. Great post.

The way to deal with many voices (4350) has always been small groups, consensus and votes.

There are so many things that could be improved by utilizing "modern technology". It's just getting over that ol' private interest hump....


.

[Selatius]

44. The suggestion is intriguing but you still need to ward off undue influence.

For that, you may just as well toss in the idea of publicly financed elections to ensure corporate elements, be it at the local or national level, do not get into a position where they have disproportionate influence.

[dfgrbac]

45. Melting pots like America are good - not bad.

The multi-cultural multi-ethnic structure of American society provides much variety in concepts and ideas. Rather than causing trouble between minorities (which admittedly does sometimes happen), it provides a richness to our society. It also helps us to understand the rest of the world. When our cultures mix in peaceful settings, a high level of interesting exchanges take place. The times when this fails is usually a result of groups that stubbornly refuse to listen to and respect the comments of others.

In watching world events over my lifetime (I am now retired), I see the same hopes and dreams in all peoples of the world. Our wishes and ideas are not all that different, no matter which country or peoples are the focus. Conflicts between nations happen due to actions of governments and their elite leaders, not actions of the people in general.

The fear of majority rule is something that has been (in my opinion) carefully instilled in us by a powerful minority that basically rules the world today. With the power they have controlling the media, they can convince us of anything - and they do. When they want to confuse an issue, they are experts in throwing out conflicting reports. So they have us well under their wing. Here is what I say about direct democracy; tyranny is imposed on the majority, not by it! The good people of the world (and that includes most everybody) would never create tyranny on anyone.

I believe a true democratic, multi-cultural society would advance far faster than anything the world has seen so far. The variety of ideas would help us find the best. You may have heard the phrase with quantity (of choices) you get quality!

Once we truly understand what the common good means (like ants do), we may have a real chance to survive.

Also, to understand what we are up against, check out this 2 minute video.

[Vehl]

48. I prefer the term "bowl of fruit/salad bowl" over the melting pot

Imho I believe you might be confusing two things which are not mutually exclusive here.

There are countries which have (relatively) peaceful elections, and yet end up with governments that discriminate against the minority.The existence of the former does not negate the latter from happening.

For example, lets look at this hypothetical situation.

A country is made up of two major ethnic groups. Group A makes up 75% of the population and group B makes up 25% of the population. When election comes, its virtually guaranteed that the party that represents Group A will always win. Often enough such parties tend to be the ones that play up the differences between the majority and the minority. With a population makeup like this, its guaranteed that every "democratic" election would result in the preservation of the status quo and in the continued oppression of the minority.


Let us take the issue of same sex marriage, and Abortion; here in the US. If by a twist of fate that 50.1% of Americans support a ban on these, what would be the fate of the minority that does not support it? herein lies the problem with majority rule. often enough the mob-mentality (I use this in a loose manner) trumps reason when those in majority realize that they can get whatever they want to, done merely because they have the majority. What if religious fundamentalists make up the majority and realize that all references to Darwinian evolution should be done away with..in the school curricula? The republican form of government with democratic elections provide the necessary checks and balances to prevent such travesties of justice from happening.


You might have noticed that I did not mention government-government relations but only spoke about national-level governance. Foreign policy is imho a different story altogether and hasn't got much to do with what for of government we have as a nation. As for the melting pot comment, I always welcome interaction between different cultures, peoples and ideals. However I am against the outdated anthropological term of "melting pot". If I remember correctly the current term is "bowl of fruit". The melting pot results in a gooey mixture which retains no identifiable attributes of its constituent parts. However a bowl of fruit enables us to savour the different textures and flavours while retaining their identity. I prefer this form of unity amongst diversity as opposed to a form of unity due to comformity implied by the melting pot model.However, I digress.


Last but not the least, my views regarding the forms of government were heavily influenced by the years I spent as a kid in SriLanka, and my experience of the discrimination I had to face for being a minority in a majority-run country.imho Direct democracy has too many inherent dangers to be used without a form of republicanism. The more I look at the way countries govern themselves around the world..and the issues they face, the more convinced I am of about the validity of a state-based democratic republic form of government.

I hope this clarifies my position :)


Ps: I do agree that the influence of lobby groups and special interests should be done away with, in any form of government.

[dfgrbac]

56. Your "hypothetical situation" assumes black and white differences.

Stereotyping is a key tool of propaganda. Those who control media want us all to believe that groups are completely homogeneous in their ideas and beliefs. This helps them claim black and white differences between groups. It is my experience that in any group you will find much variety in the intensity of their agreement on any one issue. Thus the differences become gray rather than starkly black and white.

When you consider issues by themselves, the differences between groups often disappears. In other words, everyone wants freedom, a decent living, good food and shelter, a healthy environment, access to good health care, and so on. This defines the whole of humanity far more than the description of any group. It is issues like these that bring us all together once we remove the tyranny created on us by powerful ruling minorities that gain governmental power.

In fact group intelligence (especially of the "melting pot" variety) often shows a higher intelligence than any individual in the group - as this study reveals.

By the way, I do not advocate a wholesale changeover to direct democracy replacing our current government. Democracy is the only way for everyday people to access power. We need desperately to be able to place real issues on the national ballot, aside from the preselected characters we are forced to vote for. The National Initiative as designed by NI4D would create essentially a forth branch of government for the people without disturbing the current three branch structure otherwise.

[Maine_Nurse]

17. And we'd still condone women and blacks as property. nt

[The Backlash Cometh]

19. Agreed. A republic makes the most sense. Now, we just need to all start

referring to ourselves as a republic and begin to understand all the nuances to better debate the conservatives.

[JaneQPublic]

26. You are correct.

To say this country is a republic, not a democracy is like saying "My car is Corolla, not a Toyota."

[Horse with no Name]

34. Much better source. The Federalist Papers #10 to explain the difference

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

>>>snip
If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

[Common Sense Party]

5. I think the country needs a Civics refresher course.

We ARE a Republic, a democratic republic.

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. Yes, we do.

Because it's the only issue which the right-wingers seem to understand, though I'm not convinced they're applying it correctly.

[BOG PERSON]

16. a list of some famous republics

people's REPUBLIC of china
union of soviet socialist REPUBLICS
democratic people's REPUBLIC of korea
people's democratic REPUBLIC of yemen
german democratic REPUBLIC

...noticing a pattern yet?

[The Backlash Cometh]

20. But they don't have our Constitution and bill of rights.

[BOG PERSON]

24. they do/did have Constitutions

here is the constitution of the DPRK, for example.

[The Backlash Cometh]

28. But they don't have OURS.

[BOG PERSON]

32. so what?

it's just a piece of paper.

[Horse with no Name]

39. That's what bush said. Interesting you would bring it up. n/t

[The Backlash Cometh]

50. I respect your skepticism.

[Rabblevox]

38. WE don't have ours anymore either. nt

[AsahinaKimi]

21. Heres a Republic!

[Vehl]

41. How about this!

:D



^^
Fumoffu!

[AsahinaKimi]

52. heh

kawaii ne!

[Vehl]

53. Honto ni kawaii

(lol I hope I got that right. I'm just on level 1 Japanese in RosettaStone :)) )

[Horse with no Name]

27. They don't fit the definition

any more than calling yourself "The Moral Majority"...makes you moral OR the majority.

You have to look deeper than the name. It is about substance.

[BOG PERSON]

33. actually...

they don't fit YOUR definition.

edit: what i mean is, there's no rule that says republics can't be one-party states.

[Horse with no Name]

36. We are talking about THIS country and what the founding fathers defined it as

Now, we cannot under any stretch of the imagination define what THEIR founders envisioned.

But, our history states that what WE have is a REPUBLIC.

Pure and simple. It's not "my definition".

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

[Vehl]

37. well..not really

One of the core philosophies behind the "republic" is that its a form of government that ensures that that the majority does not run roughshod over the wishes of the minority.In other words, the prevention of "mob rule"

As for your list of "republics" (like the PRC or the USSR and NK) you have to keep in mind that they refer to the "generic" definition of a republic as thought of in Europe during the previous centuries..especially int he 1800s when anything that was not a monarchy was considered a republic. Thus when the soviets got rid of the Tzars they assumed that they were a "republic" for the simple reason that they do not have a monarch. However, there is more to a republic than merely being one that does not have a monarch.

Having a one party system, especially one that concentrates authority in the central government is definitely a far cry from what a republic is supposed to be. Thus the USSR was, and the PRC, NK are merely republics in name but not in practice. In fact one party rule, coupled with overwhelming power held by the central government is probably one of the worst form of governments around today..short of dictatorship.

Why did you think the former Soviet block nations were so happy to split from the USSR? the same goes for many ethnic minorities within the PRC...not to mention the Tibetans.

[dfgrbac]

46. There is no "mob rule" in a peaceful election!

The fear of majority rule is something that has been (in my opinion) carefully instilled in us by a powerful minority that basically rules the world today. With the power they have controlling the media, they can convince us of anything - and they do. When they want to confuse an issue, they are experts in throwing out conflicting reports. So they have us well under their wing. Here is what I say about direct democracy; tyranny is imposed on the majority, not by it! The good people of the world (and that includes most everybody) would never create tyranny on anyone.

I believe a true democratic, multi-cultural society would advance far faster than anything the world has seen so far. The variety of ideas would help us find the best. You may have heard the phrase with quantity (of choices) you get quality!

Once we truly understand what the common good means (like ants do), we may have a real chance to survive.

Also, to understand what we are up against, check out this 2 minute video.

[Vehl]

49. please refer to my post #48 nt

[Capitalocracy]

47. This is an easy one. When the polls are against them, it's a Republic.

When the polls are on their side, it's a Democracy.

When they win an election, it's a Democracy.

When they lose an election, it's a Republic.

When they win, it's a Mandate.

When they lose, it's Govern for Everyone, not just your own party.

[The Backlash Cometh]

51. Thank you for clarifying.

It makes sense that their perspective is based on whether they're winning or losing.

[Jmaxfie1]

54. In reality saying we are a democracy would be better for them...

a Democracy would tend to support States Rights better, a Republic a stronger central government. As one poster said a above, technically we have a Democratic-Republic. The founders did set up a Republic, but really what many of these Tea Baggers would like to go back to is the Articles of Confederation and perhaps town hall meetings. It makes since that over time we became a Democratic-Republic since we are technically have a Federal government (A blending of the idea of a National Government (A central authority makes all the laws and a Confederacy (the States themselves make most of the laws.

[pbrower2a]

55. Simple explanation

Republic = thing of the people
Democracy = the people rule.
Commonwealth = loan-translation of "republic"

"Thing" is the literal word for democratic assemblies in Viking lands, and it often appears (as "ting") in names of parliaments.

Basically, a political order is a republic if it doesn't have a reigning monarch; a democracy is a political order in which people have a government that they elected freely and fairly in competitive elections that acts in according to constitutional constraints on power.

It is possible to have a democracy that is not a republic (Netherlands) or a republic that is not a democracy (Iran, North Korea). So you know what choice to take if you must go into exile from the US.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

57. We are a Republic because the founding fathers didn't trust the citenzry in making choices on their

own.

[lumberjack_jeff]

58. I think we have a constitutional republic.

There's nothing about a republic or direct democracy which constrains mob rule.