Originally Posted by Excargodog (Post 3147643)

You are welcome.

Originally Posted by germanaviator (Post 3147639)

I think it is important to understand that democracies come in various shapes. If that were not true then why would there be a Democracy Index published by "The Economist Intelligence Unit". https://www.eiu.com/topic/democracy-index

I don't necessarily want to discuss the specifics of that report but it clearly shows that there are very democratic democracies and not so democratic democracies, plus hybrid systems and totalitarian regimes. Sure, that's just one way to look at it but it makes sense.

How often have I heard american politicians speaking about bringing democracy to the world in the context of past armed conflict? Why would the US want to bring democracy to other countries if it's allegedly not a democracy itself?

How a nation describes its own political system is not always a reliable indicator of the true form of government. The German Democratic Republic (East Germany) was about as democratic as China is today. And the US are a democracy and a Republic, even though the word democracy does not appear in the constitution. It's not just me who "believes" this:I often hear people argue that the United States is a republic, not a democracy. But that’s a false dichotomy. A common definition of “republic” is, to quote the American Heritage Dictionary, “A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them” — we are that. A common definition of “democracy” is, “Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives” — we are that, too.
The United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority vote. Some lawmaking is done this way, on the state and local levels, but it’s only a tiny fraction of all lawmaking. But we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy.

And indeed the American form of government has been called a “democracy” by leading American statesmen and legal commentators from the Framing on. It’s true that some Framing-era commentators made arguments that distinguished “democracy” and “republic”; see, for instance, The Federalist (No. 10), though even that first draws the distinction between “pure democracy” and a “republic,” only later just saying “democracy.” But even in that era, “representative democracy” was understood as a form of democracy, alongside “pure democracy”: John Adams used the term “representative democracy” in 1794; so did Noah Webster in 1785; so did St. George Tucker in his 1803 edition of Blackstone; so did Thomas Jefferson in 1815. Tucker’s Blackstone likewise uses “democracy” to describe a representative democracy, even when the qualifier “representative” is omitted.

Likewise, James Wilson, one of the main drafters of the Constitution and one of the first Supreme Court Justices, defended the Constitution in 1787 by speaking of the three forms of government being the “monarchical, aristocratical, and democratical,” and said that in a democracy the sovereign power is “inherent in the people, and is either exercised by themselves or by their representatives.” And Chief Justice John Marshall — who helped lead the fight in the 1788 Virginia Convention for ratifying the U.S. Constitution — likewise defended the Constitution in that convention by describing it as implementing “democracy” (as opposed to “despotism”), and without the need to even add the qualifier “representative.”

To be sure, in addition to being a representative democracy, the United States is also a constitutional democracy, in which courts restrain in some measure the democratic will. And the United States is therefore also a constitutional republic. Indeed, the United States might be labeled a constitutional federal representative democracy. But where one word is used, with all the oversimplification that this necessary entails, “democracy” and “republic” both work. Indeed, since direct democracy — again, a government in which all or most laws are made by direct popular vote — would be impractical given the number and complexity of laws that pretty much any state or national government is expected to enact, it’s unsurprising that the qualifier “representative” would often be omitted. Practically speaking, representative democracy is the only democracy that’s around at any state or national level. Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...r-a-democracy/

Originally Posted by Excargodog (Post 3147652)

Another voice heard from. And he WAS THERE. And I’ll trust him over somebody at UCSB, thank you kindly.

Originally Posted by NE_Pilot (Post 3147675)

germanaviator, here is a hypothetical for you. Let’s say there is a king, and the people love this king. In fact, the people loved this king so much that the reason he is king is because they, the people, chose him to be king. The laws he proclaims are right and just, and in accordance with what the people want. He perfectly represents the will of the people. Would you consider this to be a democracy or a monarchy?

Originally Posted by NE_Pilot (Post 3147675)

germanaviator, here is a hypothetical for you. Let’s say there is a king, and the people love this king. In fact, the people loved this king so much that the reason he is king is because they, the people, chose him to be king. The laws he proclaims are right and just, and in accordance with what the people want. He perfectly represents the will of the people. Would you consider this to be a democracy or a monarchy?

Originally Posted by germanaviator (Post 3147893)

Ok, I'll try. But it is very hypothetical. Typically a king is not chosen by the people. In fact I think that is part of the definition of a king and queen that they are not elected. Having said that, there are many forms of monarchy including democracies where the monarch has only ceremonial functions or very limited real political power. Canada is an example. There are many others.

Originally Posted by NE_Pilot (Post 3147942)

In fact, Hamilton argued for an elective monarch (for life) to rule the newly formed United States.

Originally Posted by NE_Pilot (Post 3147942)

A monarchy, by definition, cannot be a democracy.

Originally Posted by NE_Pilot (Post 3147942)

What if the monarch is in power for life because the people voted that way? Would that not make it a representative democracy by your very definition?

Originally Posted by NE_Pilot (Post 3147942)

The issue here is that the word democracy has lost its meaning. Most do not associate democracy with its meaning, rule of the people, but rather with a notion of what is good and what is consented to. Consent of the people is not the same as rule of the people. Consent is required for any government to rule, but who rules determines the type of government that exists.

Originally Posted by NE_Pilot (Post 3147942)

Democracy: rule of the people
Oligarchy: rule of the few (this is your “representative democracy”)
Monarchy: rule of one