It was Ben Franklin, if memory serves me correctly, replied to the question, "What form of government have you given us?", at the end of the Convention. "Madam," he supposedly replied, "a Republic, if you can keep it!" Unfortunately, many are trying to throw away that concept because it is cumbersom eo enact laws, which was the idea, and makes the use of executive orders abhorrant to Constitutionalists.

Amen and well said. The 17th Amendment was a knee-jerk response with devastating consequences. The results have been more centralization of power in the Federal Government and less State sovereignty. IMO, the 17th was one of the worst Amendments to have been passed and any Constitutional Convention ought to introduce another Amendment repealing it.

A republic also has specific rights of the individual, even if it is 99% to 1%.

From my studies this is my belief as well. There are many reasons for our downfall but mostly our elected representatives have failed to uphold the constitution. In fact most have forgotten that it even exists.

Last night I hear on the radio of a survey that said 70% of people born after 1980 do not think saving our form of government is important. Scary but not surprising. We are seeing the results.

I believe our governmental system represents itself as a democracy while hiding it's true corporate nature. I'm not asking that you believe me, research it yourself. Go to the official gov. site and look at the country's budget. Every dollar collected goes to pay interest on the debt. Nothing for our armed forces, Social Security, Medicare. A name that is printed in all capital letters is a device used to indicate a corporation. The UNITES STATES of America is a corporation and it's sole purpose it to suck every last penny out of out pockets. A Republic for the United Stated of America is looking very good to me.

I admit I have a very different set of definitions in mind when I use these terms. Democracy or Representative Democracy describes the manner by which decisions are made by the government. People elect representatives (or in a pure democracy vote directly) who make the governmental decisions. This is as opposed to other decision making mechanisms such as monarchy (where the King decides), aristocracy (where the aristocrats decide) or dictatorship (where the anointed "leader" decides). The notion of a Republic goes not go to the issue of who decides but, rather, to the scope of the power exercised by the decision making entity. I think of a Republic as a government whose powers are limited either by tradition or by a Constitution. Thus it is possible to have a Republic which is also a Representative Democracy. Am I the only one with this view of the matter?

The USA was founded as a Constitutional Republic.
Anything else is a distortion of the original intent of those who put up their lives and sacred honor to create the first almost free state ever put forth on the planet. (Not counting possibilities of pre-history).

A republic usually has the "will of the people" represented by regional officials (elected senators, in our case), while a representative democracy has representatives determined by regional population size (elected representatives, in our case). Because of flawed history of pure democracies (like ancient Greece) and republics (like the Roman empire), our founders sought to balance regional representation with numerical representation in a bicameral legislature, the Congress.

Originally, the senators were chosen by the state legislatures, elected by the people of their state, but that was changed to direct election with the 17th amendment.

The original intent was for the House of Representatives to express the desires of the voters directly and swiftly, while the Senate was to be a more careful, deliberative body that considered the impact of House-proposed legislative measures and budgets on the republic and their respective regions. IMHO, the 17th amendment interfered with that model, by making the senators more responsive to party than state.

freedom vs slavery

we were founded as a republic...think about it the next time you do the pledge of allegiance... "and to the republic for which it stands"...
what is special about a republic is that the right to participate is EARNED...there is no automatic right to vote...it is earned by producers...

democracy leads to oligarchy and fascism...when everyone has the right to vote when they turn 18, you end up with tyranny of the majority and whatever smooth talking politican promises to take the most from the producers to give to the takers...rob peter to pay paul...the pauls are forever loyal to the politican who promises more...and the pauls multiply to out-vote the peters...

once a democracy is in place the end game (fascism) is set...it is only a question of when not if...

Based on the responses, I'd say it belongs in politics since no one so far has come close to answering the question you asked with anything but unsupported opinion.
I do not say this to just criticize, but to point out that none of us (so far posted that is) has really researched what the founders established or how it has changed. We are all a product of the propaganda machine that continually rains disinformation on us in education, news, advertising, and entertainment content. Much of it favors "democracy" as an ideal solution resulting in a free society. Those who recognize the inherent weaknesses of "democracy" sometimes describe it as two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. That is a pretty accurate description of pure "democracy" but it doesn't describe the structure of the US government and political power structure at all.
OK, I haven't answered your question either, XR, but I have asked another Gulcher who has researched this to post here.

AFAIK, a republic means that the people have the power. We are also a representative democracy, in that we elect people to make decision on our behalf. There are other forms of democracy, nor does democracy mean that all people have equal power. Still we use the short hand democracy to mean our republic, confederated representative democracy. That would be quite the mouthful.

Seems to me that "Supreme Power" means or implies dictatorship, use of force, minority suffers at the hands of the majority, OLIGARCHY. One would believe that democracy is "majority rules by popular vote," and a republic is "majority rules by representative vote." The premise of both is that individual rights are subjugated to the majority opinion. Neither form has safeguards against tyranny; thus the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Powers enumerated to the three branches of government. Regretfully, these were insufficient to preclude Oligarchy or Dictatorship.

I'm thinking of an oligarchy orchestrated by an elite class of more than equal Orwellian "Animal Farm" pigs.
I'm also thinking of the ruled; to wit, indoctrinated low information misguided sheep ironically mentally malfunctioning within the perimeters of the so-called "Information Age."
PS: "Lemmings" may be a more accurate description than "sheep," but old dino does not want to think about this response any more. It kinda hurts.

After last night, one could argue that the US is a socialist "utopia".

What we have today is a hybrid. Not really a true democracy or republic. Several hundred years ago when communication was word or mouth or newspaper print dissemination of political events was incredibly slow so a "republic" was a better idea . Today communication is almost instant. If one studies the education of the framers one finds they were incredibly well educated. I suspect few would be able to debate them without suffering embarrassment. While political views varied back then the course of the country ran true. Today I see Tytler's predictions coming true so I wonder if a true democracy is a good thing.

So is the US at its present state a republic or a democracy?

I think of a "Republic" as a gov't with safeguards in place aimed at preventing tyranny of the majority. "Democracy" can be casual slang for a "democratic republic", or it can mean the people ruling as a mob without protections against the people disregarding the rights of the minority or doing things that destroy the democracy.

Ben_C,

Thanks for your post. If we are a republic then in a a republic voting is something that is only available to entitled citizens, its a privileged that is in some way earned. If we are a republic how is that privileged earned today?

Seems to me this all started back with the Greeks. Not everyone was eligible to vote, but those eligible voted on everything. Citizens voted. Slaves and Middle Class were not eligible. So, it really wasn't a true democracy. Today, by necessity of logistics, we are a "republic" given it would be neigh impossible for everyone to vote on everything. But then again, it would be interesting. Given the framers envisioned law making to be a slow process having everyone vote on everything would really gum up the works. Problem solved.

I put this in the wrong place, it was meant to be under ask the Gulch. If an admin sees this thread can you move it?