Originally Posted by
germanaviator
I can see why you could think that I'm contradicting myself. So just to be clear: I have no doubt that the U.S. has a democracy. Not a direct democracy of course but a democracy nonetheless. I just think it's a flawed democracy that makes it possible for a candidate to become president when more people voted for the other candidate. I find that particular aspect of this democracy
undemocratic.
A democracy cannot be undemocratic and remain a democracy. Either, it is a democracy and it’s elections are democratic or not. If you believe in such a thing as “indirect” democracy and believe that it applies to the US, then it would be perfectly democratic that the President could be elected without a majority of the votes.
Unless, of course, an “indirect” democracy is in fact not democratic by its nature. A “direct” democracy is the only type of democracy because that is what democracy is, once you add in representatives, etc. you are no longer a democracy.
The essence of government is law. Who decides what the laws are is a good way in figuring out what type of government exists. If the people vote on all the laws you are a democracy. Electing officials, alone, does not make a democracy. Generally, a government in which legislators are elected, who then make laws, is referred to as a republic.