When people think about the United States of America, they probably think apple pie, baseball, freedom, and democracy…except that last one isn’t true. That’s right America is not a democracy, instead, it is a republic, which is something completely different in regards to a democracy.
In a republic, the ones who wield power are those who are directly or indirectly voted in by the citizenry. People elect those who they think are willing, capable, and trustworthy enough to wield a given power to pass laws and craft policies based on their platforms.
A democracy, on the other hand, is a bit different. While in some cases it does still involve a representation through indirect or direct voting, the difference is located in where the power is centralized: the people. In a democracy, the people are the ones who hold the ultimate power while the governments exists to carry it out. On paper, this doesn’t sound like too bad of an ordeal, and has been done successfully on small, town level scales, but when it comes to larger governments, it does not, cannot, and will not work.
First off, important decisions left to the public would involve complicated issues that would put both them and the country at risk. On a town or village level, it works because the people are dealing with issues closer to home, such as building schools, improving roads, putting in fire or police brigades, etc. Things start to get more complicated on the national level because there would be millions upon millions of voices and opinions on a certain issue, and I can 100% agree that no issue, especially in the United States, would warrant a unanimous agreement.
Second off, with that influx of opinions, it would be massively difficult for one party to argue their cause against the others. Since there is no set definition of what the right course of action is, debates would take longer than usual and produce little to no effective outcome. Everyone would like the chance to expand upon their authority, but with the divisions and the diversity in the United States, that’s why it would be better to elect someone who shares your point of view instead of having a free for all debate.
As the Founding Fathers were putting together the Constitution, they feared democracy amongst the masses for a good reason. A country under a “tyranny of the majority” would not survive for long, as the government would become a servant and a puppet for various groups trying to get favorable legislation passed. With that, fraudulent and nonsensical pieces of legislation could be passed with only the masses saying so; which means that funds would be depleted, time would be wasted on useless policies, and the government would be subservient to a majority less skilled and educated than them. A government needs to say no, but only after listening to the people and carefully pondering on whether a policy is sensible enough to carry out.
Not even in our elections, are we much of a democratic society; instead, we have the Electoral College. Granted, the College has many problems on its own such as its outdated style of selecting a winner, and the blasted “winner-take-all” system, which means that any candidate who gains the most vote in a state, wins that state entirely (except for Maine and Nebraska which has a more proportional style of voting), but it is a necessary evil. When looking at the map of the United States based on populations, it is clear that some states are more populated than others; the top five most populated states are California, Texas, Florida, New York and Illinois. If we didn’t have the Electoral College, the candidates would focus the brunt of their campaign on those states while ignoring much of the other 45 states.
The Electoral College ensures that each state gets a share of representation. Each state’s electors are comprised of the number of representatives they have plus the two senators. If we didn’t have the Electoral College, there would be nothing to stop the votes of California from easily outweighing the votes of North Dakota. Again, it is in desperate need of reform, but the Electoral College ensures that no state’s voice remains overshadowed by a bigger state.
In conclusion, despite common misconception, the United States is not a democracy, and we are better off not as one. A democracy is nothing short of a free for all amongst the masses of which the government cannot even control, let alone say no to every now and then.
The Greek philosopher Socrates described what he thought democracy was when he proposed an election between a doctor and a sweet shop owner. The sweet shop owner tells the people that the doctor gives them nothing but pain and discomfort, and if they vote for him, they will feast on the most delicious treats they can possibly imagine. The doctor rebuts this statement by saying that he hurts them and gives them pain only so that they may avoid another greater and unavoidable pain in the future. Mistrusting the doctor and appealing to the sweet shop owner’s pleasant promises, the people, in their misguided ignorance elect the sweet shop owner.
Ladies and gentlemen, in this day and age, we desperately need a doctor.
