Talk:Democratic republic/Archive 1

Archive 1

Older comments

Hey,

What happened to the page? I need a disambiguation or something. These words are very politicized and I needs some clarity:

Democratic republic constitutional democracy Constitutional republic federal republic

These seem to be all bandied about.

-Grok70 or Sam_gunn (i'll figure out my user name later.)

While I am not an editor of this article, I don't understand the objection. Are you saying that you believe that the terms used in the article are "too politicized" on a political subject matter? Or are you saying that you believe the terminology in the article is used to imply political agenda(s) or bias? As to the first, governments are political by nature. This would be like saying that scientific terms are too scientific for an article on or about Science. As to the second, I don't personally agree that this article has any bias toward any particular political agenda. But if you disagree on the neutrality of the article, that certainly would be worth discussing. 165.138.95.59 (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

There are lists in this article of countries that are/were self-described as Democratic Republics, most (if not all) of which don't fit the definition given at the start. How about a list of countries that actually fit the definition, such as the United States? WaxTadpole (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not being funny but the article isn't correct and would instead be defining a "democracy" and is ignoring the "republican" side of the situation" since saying "the will of the people" alone doesn't truly explain the matter. Individual is more correct.

Many people are mistaken at defining a democratic republic; as a result this is what you see in such a society;

There is;

1. A constitutional set of laws defining the key difference between federal and domestic laws: 2. Domestic laws that outlaw case laws such as; fraud, rape, murder, torture, state-religions, harassment, coercion & treason applicable to everyone etc. 3. Federal laws whereby elected leader(s) writes laws that set protocols for assuring the domestic laws are systematically being conducted. 4. If a leader fails to create a circuit and citizen is caught in the tangle (false-arrest or such) the citizen is compensated. (They can make a complaint in court with a camera and be judged by peers etc and equally counter-claim against any). 5. Leaders do not get to set the goals for the country in any shape or form. They simply run the country looking for methods to assure wealth distribution. 6. If people on the field working for a leader truly believe their policy is only going to do harm, they don't have to follow protocol and can improvise but take responsibility for their take on the scenario. 7. Usually if enough people complain about a leader doing something unlawful to the local authorities, then the leader is tried as it is commonly known that a government can still function without a leader for a short period (a season or two).

That's pretty much it. Nothing is carved in stone but it's just a pragmatic way to operate a country without any jargon. "A cut to the chase" Utopia that's easier for everyone. Fantasy left at the door. 94.15.239.239 (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

just explaining, dropped the blaming

Freedom House may be quite unbiased, but a base and funding that's not global hints at a perspective that is also not global. It seems better to stop at the agreed concepts and the apparent misuses -- then just refer to the Freedom_in_the_World report while repeating less of its details. --LoneStarNot (talk) 04:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The US Consitution clearly and unambiguously states in Article IV, Section IV the following: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, "

Note that it does not state Democratic form, nor does it state Democratic Republican form. It clearly states Republican form of Government. The Federalist papers document that the founders SPECIFICALLY REJECTED Democracy as violent, destructive, and mob rule. Citation Source US Constitution, Article 4, Section 4., Federalist papers.

In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison wanted to prevent rule by majority faction, saying, “Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”

John Adams warned in a letter, “Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet, that did not commit suicide.”

Edmund Randolph said, “That in tracing these evils to their origin, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.”

Then-Chief Justice John Marshall observed, “Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.”

The Founders expressed contempt for the tyranny of majority rule, and throughout our Constitution, they placed impediments to that tyranny. Two houses of Congress pose one obstacle to majority rule. That is, 51 senators can block the wishes of 435 representatives and 49 senators.

The president can veto the wishes of 535 members of Congress. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress to override a presidential veto.

To change the Constitution requires not a majority but a two-thirds vote of both houses, and if an amendment is approved, it requires ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures.

Finally, the Electoral College is yet another measure that thwarts majority rule. (AKA Democracy -- Comment mine) It makes sure that the highly populated states—today, mainly 12 on the east and west coasts, cannot run roughshod over the rest of the nation. That forces a presidential candidate to take into consideration the wishes of the other 38 states.

Adding structure and citations

I'm going to be adding some structure, citations, and a copyedit to this page in the next few days. I'll be doing it with another account, user:EverettCC_Test_Student, because I'm going to use it as an example for a class I'm teaching. Please direct any questions to me at the userpage associated with my signature here. Thank you very much! Stevenarntson (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): EverettCC Test Student.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Pleonasm

Isn't it a pleonasm? demo = people, cratic = power, re = king, public = people. It meanas power of the people of the people as kings. Also, this is not a pure democracy to be so strong about it. If it was pure democracy, the pleonasm would make sense. TudorTulok (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)