A discussion of republic Vs democracy

From this website.

"Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated.

"Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy."

From this website:

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.

Direct 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).

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.

Republic

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.

John Adams:
"By conventions of representatives, freely, fairly, and proportionately chosen . . . the convention may send out their project of a constitution, to the people in their several towns, counties, or districts, and the people may make the acceptance of it their own act."

James Madison:

"As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government (that of a Republic) presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another." (Emphasis added.)

It is noteworthy here that the above discussion, though brief, is sufficient to indicate the reasons why the label "Republic" has been misapplied in other countries to other and different forms of government throughout history. It has been greatly misunderstood and widely misused--for example as long ago as the time of Plato, when he wrote his celebrated volume, The Republic; in which he did not discuss anything governmental even remotely resembling--having essential characteristics of--a genuine Republic.




*OK, now I'm talking again.*


So, I think, in doing my reading (which I did back in my freshman year at BYU as well as in my Constitution class in 8th grade... but back then I think my brain was half-formed and only vaguely understood enough to get good test scores) I realize that I do not want a direct democracy. And never have.

But I think I have also realized that a lot of people misunderstand our government. They talk about it (libertarians in particular)being an "other." "Government taking over." "Government infringing upon our rights." Well, I understand that now, in a sense, because with a republic-form of government we have created something (the constitution) that is supposed to be the golden rule upon which all else hangs (we need to follow laws created by the legislative gov't. We need to abide by the rulings of the Judicial system. We need to obey executive powers, or expect consequences if we don't.)

SO is government really other? Or is it US? I realize nobody is alive now that signed the constitution. So you could effectively say that none of us alive have agreed to this implied agreement upon which our government is based.

What we should realize, though, is that we have slid a bit from the first picture that Madison had of government. The Madison compromise was the first bit. Madison wanted a true representative republic: the actual population represented proportionately in government. But the large, more-sparsely populated southern states were, of course, not OK with this... they felt themselves at a disadvantage if the legislators were chosen in proportion to population, and wouldn't effectively represent all states' rights, and if the state's rights were to be upheld, then there should be a governing body that equally represented each.

So, already, we have a contrived element to our government that has nothing to do with actual people, but instead an entity known as State.

This is not necessarily bad. But it's something to think about.

One of the biggest elements of our constitution was the resolution that the state's legislative bodies would elect our national representatives: senators, specifically, while congressmen were elected by the populous. This changed at the beginning of the 20th century, when the right to elect senators was passed on to the people in the state, to elect through majority. Thus, moving us closer to the idea of democracy as opposed to the Republic. Here's an article on how this happened and why.

Because Congressmen were already elected by the people, this made it so that our entire legislative body was elected by the people.

Our national judicial system is not representative... basically, we elect our president who will select the supreme court judges. So we're still a step removed from a more direct-democracy approach, there.

Our national executive branch is an interesting thing. The people don't directly elect the president. When we vote in the primaries, we directly narrow down the presidential candidates to two, who run against each other. But when it comes to the national election, the nationwide vote translates into electoral votes. These electoral votes are cast by the "electoral college", who are selected either by the state legislature or randomly (each state has its own system). Depending on the state, these electorate may not even have to vote the way the state itself has voted. Though a lot of states have changed that now because the populace gets upset (another example of our our republic system has shifted to a more representative-democratic system.)


The president selects his own cabinet, which makes up the rest of the executive branch. So this is a more republic aspect of our current system: the President, who the people halfway directly and halfway indirectly elect, is a representative who then appoints the rest of the executive branch.

The interesting thing about all of this, is that our government was formed four hundred years ago, when most people were not educated enough to know the information and understand what they would need to, to participate productively in the system. So all these Republican protections, eg, having the populous elect representatives instead of directly deciding who is in our government, may be somewhat unnecessary.

Of course there are lots of people out there who are apathetic, and those who are a tad crazy, and those who would like to promote their own, narrow interests as they decide who to elect. But in the end, aren't all these factions supposed to balance each other out in favor of what the majority would wish (assuming the majority of the population participates?) That's the beauty of democracy.

There is a scripture in the Book Of Mormon that says exactly how I feel about government:

Mosiah 29:

26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.
27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.

When you read this chapter of scripture, you realize that Mosiah was also describing a system of electing representatives that then create law. Specifically, he was addressing the issue of Judges. Which, when you think about it, makes sense, because a judicial system governed by only the majority voice is a scary thing. Think what would happen to people like OJ Simpson and Charles Manson if the undefined majority (as opposed to a jury, selected by a judge and panel, who are elected by the people) sentenced them. Justice would not be served... it would be more like vengeance.

Anyway, just some thoughts. Figuring out what the beef I have with our current system is... because i feel like it's not nearly representative enough, but I'm not yet sure in what way. Just a vague but also powerful feeling that I need to put into actual political theory, just for my own benefit.