Its confirmed, America is not a democracy.
Studies show that in the period of 1981 to 2002 public preference had a near zero impact on public policy. Things have of course gotten way worse since then.
So its an Oligarchy now.
i guess they are taking the Russian place in the world as they have become a Fascist state.
So its an Oligarchy now.
i guess they are taking the Russian place in the world as they have become a Fascist state.
Comments103
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Well America was a republic when it was founded. It was never a democracy
Democracy and oligarchy are separable. A democratic oligarchy is entirely possible.
Everyone's arguing. 
Art whore, maybe?
Art whore, maybe?
What, you just now figured that out? XD
Thanks, Obama!
Oh, wait, 2002....
Oh, wait, 2002....
1. Russia is not a fascist state.
2. This has never been nor ever will be a true democracy.
3. This has never been nor ever will be anything but an oligarchy pending a major social, political, and economic revolution.
4. Oligarchy is not a proper noun.
2. This has never been nor ever will be a true democracy.
3. This has never been nor ever will be anything but an oligarchy pending a major social, political, and economic revolution.
4. Oligarchy is not a proper noun.
Russia is not, nor has it ever been a fascist state.
Fascist doesn't just mean "totalitarian". The USSR was a Communist state, Nazi Germany, Franco's Spain, and Mussolini's Italy were fascist states.
Fascist doesn't just mean "totalitarian". The USSR was a Communist state, Nazi Germany, Franco's Spain, and Mussolini's Italy were fascist states.
That is just a bunch of conspiracy theory, stop being so paranoid nutso.
Why do so many in the US love saying "It's not a democracy, it's a Republic" when clearly they have no understanding of what either of those terms actually mean? A lovely little soundbite muttered by those without knowledge.
Simply a Republic is a system without a monarch or some form of herititary ruler.
A democracy is a system in which the ruler, laws and lawmakers are in some way voted on. It is NOT just a system where everyone votes on everything. That is direct democracy which is only one form of democracy but not the only form.
So the US is a democracy and it is a Republic. It's just not a very representative democracy.
Simply a Republic is a system without a monarch or some form of herititary ruler.
A democracy is a system in which the ruler, laws and lawmakers are in some way voted on. It is NOT just a system where everyone votes on everything. That is direct democracy which is only one form of democracy but not the only form.
So the US is a democracy and it is a Republic. It's just not a very representative democracy.
Oligarchy means "rule of the rich".
Good job, asshole.
Good job, asshole.
No oligarchy means rule by the few you idiot.
And who, in ancient Greece (where the word and system was created) do you think the few were?
Who do you think today the few are?
It's the same answer and there is only one answer. In our current civilization, those who control the economy control the world. So work it out.
Who do you think today the few are?
It's the same answer and there is only one answer. In our current civilization, those who control the economy control the world. So work it out.
The fact the few are the wealthy does not mean the word means rule by the wealthy. Rule by the wealthy is called Plutocracy. Members of an oligarchy are often wealthy but they it isn't a needed criteria. For example after a military coup you could have rule by those who aren't very wealthy (see Cuba, China, Russia). They may amass wealth later as a result of their power.
How that makes an argument is beyond me. They are still wealthy when in power, and they share none of that power with the people below them.
Oligarchies naturally lead to wealth because when you have all the power in the country, it becomes incredibly easy to become wealthy. However it is NOT a requirement of an oligarchy. As I've already said, Oligarchy means rule by the few and Plutocracy is rule by the wealthy. The 2 often mix but they are still distinct enough.
Thank goodness you are here to save us from ourselves, nevermind all the constitutional scholars who agree the US is a constitutional republic.
It is a Constitutional Republic, that is not a term that excludes it also being a democracy... It's like saying this is a car therefore it can't be made by Rolls Royce... Just because something is made by Rolls Royce that doesn't automatically make it a car and just because something is a car that doesn't automatically make it a Rolls Royce but what sort of person would claim you can't have a Rolls Royce car? The terms are not mutually exclusive.
As I said elsewhere in this thread: " The lowest levels of government tend to be more democratic to a varied degree, but still must operate within constitutional confines. The only thing democratic about our federal government is the fact that we individually have the right to place our own vote for representation, but that representation does not have to follow the express will of the people. That is why we have terms. All levels of government must follow the Constitution first and foremost." While it is a sipmle enough thought to say that IS a democracy at its core, the Constitution is the core, not the will of the people. The people can change that core, but they must follow the core's own protocols.
None of which I argue against but the fact is the system is still a democratic one. It could be more democratic than it currently is and it could be less. The thing I argue against is the point that the only democracy is where everyone directly votes on legislation themselves. That is the "purest" democracy but is not by any means the only democracy.
While I agree that in the broadest of terms, the US is a democracy. However, by your own definition, any country that allows the "people" to participate would be a democracy, including North Korea, Iran, Cuba, to name a few that hold elections. These elections are highly considered to be bogus.
The elections have to have some sort of meaning and legitimacy. In north korea you can only vote for the party in power.
View all replies
It's a constitutional federated republic. That's what the plan was anyway. Since then people have been debating over "what it is" but more-or-less due to the fact that our three-part government has had several shifts in maybe-it-does-exist, maybe-it-doesn't-exist power due to non-specific language in the Constitution.
The thing about democracy is it isn't digital (as in you have it all or none). It can exist in varying degrees. For example China has limited levels of local democracy even though the state is definitely not democratic.
You can have all sorts of different systems but ultimately democracy is about the ability to people to vote for either laws or law makers to some degree. The level of enfranchisement and the power that vote carries affects how democratic a system is. As an example my group for the project at Uni is entirely direct democracy, 5 people vote and that vote decides what the group will do. However when I voted for a person to represent my views on the Student-Staff liason committee that was still democratic, despite the fact I don't personally vote on the decisions. If said representative actually votes in the committee based on the popular view of the people they represent then that makes the system more democratic and representative, if they don't then it becomes less democratic and representative. It would still be democratic, just not as much.
You can have all sorts of different systems but ultimately democracy is about the ability to people to vote for either laws or law makers to some degree. The level of enfranchisement and the power that vote carries affects how democratic a system is. As an example my group for the project at Uni is entirely direct democracy, 5 people vote and that vote decides what the group will do. However when I voted for a person to represent my views on the Student-Staff liason committee that was still democratic, despite the fact I don't personally vote on the decisions. If said representative actually votes in the committee based on the popular view of the people they represent then that makes the system more democratic and representative, if they don't then it becomes less democratic and representative. It would still be democratic, just not as much.