Instigator / Pro
8
1493
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#3738
The United States has never been a democracy
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
RationalMadman
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
14
1702
rating
568
debates
68.13%
won
Description
Since the election of 2020, supporters of former President Donald Trump have become notably more willing to assert their belief that voting in America is suspect. That Trump won an election he lost. That "millions of ballots" were uncounted or miscounted. That voting by mail was fraught with abuse.
Despite the lack of evidence, and the judgments of election officials from both parties and judges appointed by presidents from both parties, election denialism has become not only a thing, but a movement. And when critics call this an attack on democracy, some election deniers respond by saying the U.S. is not a democracy, it is a republic.
Round 1
Pro
#1
What justifies claiming the United States not being a democracy?
1. We start by defining the term "democracy":
- Oxford Languages:
(AA) a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
- Dictionary.com:
(BA) government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
(BB) a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
(BC) political or social equality; democratic spirit.
(BD) the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.
2. We continue by looking for indicators that would constitute evidence of the existence of a democracy.
The following is a list of multiple possible evidences:
(CA) public opinion has significant impact on lawmaking.
(CB) each individuals voice is of equal power.
(CC) the population is called to a free election at regular intervals
3. How do these indicators compare to the United States?
- public opinion has significant impact on lawmaking (CA):
In 2014, Princeton University researched the relationship between the senate passing a law and its support in public.
"The preferences of the avarage american appear to have only a minuscule, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy"
Furthermore, population per legislative representative in the USA (~ 750.000 citizens) is higher than in any other OECD-country (2nd at ~ 250.000), which erodes to impact of each individuals opinion.
More issues in this field are:
(DA) "winner takes it all" principle - degrading the impact of a large extend of votes to zero.
(DB) Gerrymandering - befitting one political party despite possible opposing majorities.
(DC) composition of the supreme court by presidents and for a lifetime - gateway for political exploitation for the sake of power.
- each individuals voice is of equal power.(CB):
This insignificance of power does not apply to all citizens and can be differentiated by net income:
"Not only do ordinary citizens not have uniquely substantial power over policy decisions; they have little or no independent influence on policy at all.By contrast, economic elites are estimated to have a quite substantial, highly significant, independent impact on policy."
The issue is systemically embedded into the United States legal system:
Lobbying is an integral part of a modern participatory government and is legally protected. In the U.S., the right to lobby is protected by both the 1st Amendment and the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995,3 and additionally by the inherent need for participation in our democratic environment.
- the population is called to a free election at regular intervals (CC):
agreed.
4. Final Words
Minority rule is a majority problem. The insignificance of the average citizens opinion is of such big irrelevance in lawmaking, that we are dealing with an oligarchy rather than democracy.
Every political system is built upon inputs and outputs. In a democracy, the input is the voice of all citizens, the output the resulting laws. The more similar these sides are in their substance, the more democratic the system. Multiple filters disturb the translation between input and output and a minimum tolerable value of similarity, from which we can call the system democratic, must be defined. The mentioned studies and statistics highly suggest that by defining the average citizens opinion as input, this value drops near zero in the US. By replacing the field of input with unrepresentative, top-1% income elites, the value of input-output translation rises.
This is done through structural corruption, among other issues, and usually referred to as oligarchy. I conclude that the United States is rather build upon oligarchic than democratic structures.
Con
#2
Semantics of 'democracy' vs 'democratic' vs 'a democracy'.
I am not here to directly disagree with every definition of 'democracy' but I would like to note that the title of this debate refers to 'a democracy'.
Pro defines democracy as follows (I will put a comment beneath each to show either that America fits it or that the definition doesn't apply):
a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
This is what the US has except the 'whole population'. It says 'or all the eligible members of a state' and as we know it's the same members who are not considered able to consent to sex and able to qualify for operating vehicles or dangerous machinery that are ruled out from voting; issue is informed consent and trustworthiness combined. The US does qualify as having all eligible mmebers of the nation-state (all US States combined) as influencing the government via elected governors and president himself (mayors too, depending).
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
This is what the US has but as mentioned prior, the 'free electoral system' rules out prisoners and children voting because of issues regarding informed consent and trustworthiness.
(BB) a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
The US has not only got equality of rights and privileges, it goes above and beyond this in a legal sense. It has a written constitution and tries to ensure equal opportunities for people, if not equal outcomes. Pro doesn't remotely prove otherwise and the default is that all are equal under the law.
(BC) political or social equality; democratic spirit.
Again, the only ones ruled out are children and prisoners.
(BD) the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.
I do not believe this is a definition of 'a democracy' and think this more about the vaguer 'democracy' as a general concept, I think this doesn't apply to this debate.
I will like to offer another set of definitions of 'a democracy':
This is much clearer, I feel, on what precisely qualifies a nation-state as a democracy and surely the US government qualifies as this and has for many decades eve.
To understand this we must leave 'definitions' and go into the branches of US government to comprehend how it is indeed democratic overall.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Branches of the US Government
The Constitution of the United States divides the federal government into three branches to make sure no individual or group will have too much power:
- Legislative—Makes laws (Congress, comprised of the House of Representatives and Senate)
- Executive—Carries out laws (president, vice president, Cabinet, most federal agencies)
- Judicial—Evaluates laws (Supreme Court and other courts)
Each branch of government can change acts of the other branches:
- The president can veto legislation created by Congress and nominates heads of federal agencies.
- Congress confirms or rejects the president's nominees and can remove the president from office in exceptional circumstances.
- The Justices of the Supreme Court, who can overturn unconstitutional laws, are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
This ability of each branch to respond to the actions of the other branches is called the system of checks and balances.
Be clear here on how this works:
It is a triangle:
This image should help you understand.
The elected President (executive branch) appoints judges of the Supreme Court and can veto decisions made by the Legislative branch in extreme circumstances. Note this is an elected official.
The Supreme Court (judicial branch) isn't elected but is appointed by the elected President, they are able to deem law made by the legislative branch (Senate and House) unconstitutional but also have to answer to the Senate if an appointment by the President is seen as too bias-driven or corrupt in nature.
The Senate and House (legislative branch) is also known as Congress are even more key to disproveing Pro than the President himself/herself:
Age, citizenship, term duration, and residency requirementsRepresentatives:
- Must be at least 25 years old.
- Must be citizens for at least seven years.
- Are elected to a two-year term.
- Must be residents of the states they represent.
Every 2 years, the representatives of the House are elected (every even year if you care to know). They are responsible for:
These even possess the power of Impeachment:
Power of impeachment
Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution states that the House “shall have the sole power of impeachment.” This power applies to the offices of president, vice president, federal judges, and other federal officers, as the Library of Congress’ Constitution Annotated explains. Grounds for impeachment are “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
The House determines whether to impeach and if an impeachment is called for; the Senate decides whether to convict and remove the official from office. This follows a pattern established in the British government and American colonial governments dating back to the 17th century, as the Senate website explains.
So, even if a President becomes so blatantly corrupt they can eventually impeach him/her, Bill Clinton was officially impeached while Nixon resigned in the face of near-certain impeachment coming his way. These are 2 clear-cut examples of the power of the Legislative branch to enact democracy if the elected President happens to truly act against what the elected House of Represntatives see as democratically valid.
Let's now inform you of the Senate and how the overall Congress is formed:
U.S. Senate
- 30 years of age
- A citizen of the United States for 9 years
- At the time of election, be a resident of the state
How many members of Congress are there?There are a total of 535 Members of Congress. 100 serve in the U.S. Senate and 435 serve in the U.S. House of Representatives.
The Senators remain for 6 years, not 2. When the death or perhaps long-term incapacitation of a Senator occurs the following happens:
The Seventeenth Amendment allows state legislatures to empower the governor to appoint a replacement to complete the term or to hold office until a special election can take place.
Take note that the governor is an elected official themselves:
In the United States, the title governor refers to the chief executive of each state. The governor is not directly subordinate to the federal authorities but is the political and ceremonial head of the state. The governor may also assume additional roles, such as the commander-in-chief of the National Guard when the role is not federalized. The governor may also have the ability to commute or pardon a criminal sentence.
In all states, the governor is directly elected and, in most cases, has considerable practical powers. Notable exceptions with weak governorships include the office of the governor in Texas, though this may be moderated by the state legislature and, in some cases, by other elected executive officials. Governors can veto state bills. The specific duties and powers vary widely between states.
So, I believe I have directly proven that the US is a democracy. Any non-elected branch of government answers to an elected branch eventually, initially or both at once.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Argumentative Guideline and Response to Counterarguments
Contra's points have not managed to transform my position. I will respectfully respond to all arguments and introduce new ones into the debate.
1. Statement on Contra's Arguments
1.1. Consents
- Definition of the term "democracy":
Contra noted, that democracy goes beyond holding elections on a regular basis. It is indeed commonly used to describe rule by majority, the view that it is the prerogative of government to reflexively carry out the will of the majority of its citizens.
1a : government by the peopleespecially: rule of the majority1b: government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections2: political unit that has a democratic government
- Explanation of the governments branches:
Contra has explained the Constitutions three branches:
The Constitution of the United States divides the federal government into three branches to make sure no individual or group will have too much power
Individually, none of these powers would have 'too much power', but competences overlap. For example, the president is authorized to replace judges in supreme court.
1.2. Disagreements
The following is a small chunk of all the contradictions that I noticed in Contra's statement:
(1) State of Equality in the United States:
Assigning the equality of every individual into the constitution is no indication for it being actually realized.
The US has got equality of rights and privileges
In fact, the opposite seems to be the case - in all three pillars of state power:
- Legislature: Access to ballots is getting tightened by Republicans for years, intentionally targeting ethnic minorities (that are more likely to vote Democrats). Countless more examples are given within this statement.
- Judiciary: Judges in the U.S. seem to have one of the world's most correlative rulings on the skin color and religious believe on those sentenced.
- Executive: Minorities are a lot more likely to get arrested and killed. The cause is likely to be a mixture of both indirect correlation and racism.
(2) Rule of the Majority:
This is a mandatory element to democracies that Contra believes fully applies to the United States:
1a : government by the peopleespecially: rule of the majority
There is much evidence contradicting this assumption. In order not to repeat myself, I will now refer to already given points appropriate in content:
- The Princeton Study, 2. (1)
- Becoming president without a majority, 2. (2)
- Remaining president without a majority, 2. (3)
- Disruptive filters between majorities and lawmaking, 3. (2)
Looking for a statement on both points in Contras response.
2. Recall: Decisive Arguments Contra did not address
(1) The average citizens opinion is almost worthless in the senate and beyond:
Studies sought and found a near-zero correlation between the average citizen's opinion and laws passed by the senate.
(2) Minority of votes can get the next president into office:
The strategic redrawing of electoral district boundaries packs as many voters of the opposing party as possible into one district in order to minimize their political impact per head.
This system is highly undemocratic, but successful: the last republican presidents have all lost the popular vote (Donald Trump, George W. Bush). Former presidents, such as Benjamin Harrison, Rutherford B. Hayes and John Quincy Adams heavily depended on similar methods to win the election.
(3) ... and majority can get him out:
Numerous polls on both of Trump's impeachment proceedings suggested that the majority of the population opposed their president.
Nevertheless, both proceedings failed due to Trump-loyalists in the House of Representatives. Pursuing personal interests was of greater relevance than the will of the majority.
3. Introduction of new Pro-Arguments
(1) Issues of the two-party-system:
- Set of only two parties fails to represent most citizens opinions, urging them to only choose the 'least worst'.
- Continuous polarization and radicalization by design: cutting the population in the half leaves a big cliff in between. Events like January 6th justifies declaring it a substantial threat to democracy.
Evidence: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/two-party-system-broke-constitution/604213/
(2) Disruptive filters between citizens' opinions and enacted laws:
Direct democracies involve all citizen in the formation of laws. Hardly any country makes use of such direct decision-making processes, for good reasons.
But how indirect may a democracy be?
For passing a bill in the House of Representatives—the body most reflective of current majority views— the Constitution requires the legislation to get also passed by the Senate—where each state is represented equally (regardless of population!), where members have longer terms, and where (under current rules) a super-majority vote is typically required to bring debate to a close.
Once passed by both houses of Congress, a bill still doesn’t become a law until it’s signed (or acquiesced to) by the president—who of course is elected not by popular national vote, but by the electoral college of the states.
And then, at last, the Supreme Court—a body consisting not of elected officials, but rather individuals appointed to lifetime terms—has the power to strike down laws that violate the Constitution. What could be more undemocratic?
Con
#4
I laid out a clear definition of a democracy and explained how the US has a government system that does enable the populace to ultimately strongly influence the outcomes of who is in it at least.
I win.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
There's a lot of discussion in this debate over what makes a strong vs. a weak democracy, particularly from Pro. That's not a particularly relevant question in this debate, since this debate is a yes or no question: does the US have a democracy or not? The case Pro brings argues that the system is often oligarchic, which he does support, but Con makes a rather convincing case that democracy still exists within the US, albeit sometimes without the typical majority rule system. Pro concedes that majority rule does, at least sometimes, play a role in how we elect our officials, since he only mitigates the evidence Con presents. As such, we need a clear delineation, i.e. what would make the US a non-democracy? Pro stipulates that there are three distinct elements that are all required to call a country a democracy:
"(CA) public opinion has significant impact on lawmaking.
(CB) each individuals voice is of equal power.
(CC) the population is called to a free election at regular intervals"
Pro concedes the third. Pro also concedes the first, since he concedes (largely by omission) that public opinion has a significant impact on who becomes/stays a lawmaker, and as such, there is at least some significant impact on lawmaking. The only question is whether each individual must have equal power, as Pro does make the case quite convincingly that that equality does not exist.
The problem here is definitional. It's unclear from Pro's definitions that equal power must exist between voters for it to be a democracy. His Dictionary.com definition does include the necessity of "equality of rights and privileges" and "political or social equality", though in both cases, it's unclear how much equality must be achieved to be called a democracy. Must this be absolute? Also, it doesn't help that Pro presents two definitions, the first of which (from Oxford) doesn't include these specifications of equality, nor does Con's Merriam-Webster definition. So if the majority of definitions in this debate don't include this stipulation, I need to know why Dictionary.com definition is the end-all-be-all, and I need to know what degree of equality is required to meet the threshold for democracy. In the absence of that clarification, all of Pro's arguments end up on the sliding scale between weak and strong democracies. Con basically concedes that the US is a weak democracy, but he nonetheless demonstrates that, under the majority of definitions in this debate as well as those best clarified throughout the debate, it is still a democracy. As such, I vote Con.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pretty straight forward debate over definitions.
I will say that con missed a glaring weakness in the pro case, in that pro listed things which are eroding the democracy in a debate declaring there was never any democracy to erode…
So pro does well in showing that the US is fairly undemocratic on the aggregate level. With a huge population, the impact of my one voter is negligible, and elected officials try to rid elections with such BS as gerrymandering, plus there’s non-elected officials in certain key roles
Con is able to show that the elected officials are indeed elected by the people, and the minority which cannot vote does not undermine if something is a democracy via one of the definitions offered by pro. That elected officials place non-elected officials into key roles, is still fitting with democracy via the self evident detail that elected officials are /elected/.
were the debate over the strength of the democracy, cons case would not hold up, but elected representatives sucking doesn’t invalidate that they are elected making everything stem from democracy itself.
TY for the votes
I've read through this so I'll try to get a vote up this weekend.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Undefeatable // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
Sadly, Con did not address the heart of Pro's argument telling us that the minority of the persons can vote for a president, and the president will still win. Con has only offered the possibility of the law making and the checks and balances, which don't really tell us how they outweigh the people having little to no effect on the Senate Laws or perhaps even the Presidential election. Feel free to ask for more details in the comments.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Though the voter does address some arguments presented by both sides, they left aside the central issue of the debate, which is the definitional debate. It's fine if the voter sees certain parts of the given definitions as paramount, but the voter must at least address that portion of the debate, as it appears crucial to the arguments from both sides.
**************************************************
I'll see what I can do.
Please vote on this debate.
Can you vote in this please?
The checks and balances are literally what keep the US democratic. How can you call that a valid rfd?
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Shila // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
The hypocrisy in the American system of government has been fully exposed. The organized lies behind all its foreign policy resulted in unnecessary wars. The American system sustained black slavery for 300 years. The founding fathers were themselves slave owners.
10 percentage of the rich own 89% of America’s wealth. Democracy is not supposed to function this way. But America did since its creation.
Therefore one is forced to conclude: The United States has never been a democracy.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Awarding arguments requires that the voter assess points made in the debate, not select a side that they see as agreeing with their perspective. The voter does not justify any of their other point allocations.
**************************************************
Thanks for the feedback.
Thanks for retracting your vote in light of your new assessment about this debate.
Your strategy is the same in both your statements as it is here in the comments.
You are getting criticized, but do not address the content and pretend that another context-less point of your argument has just not been understood.
And ending your statement with "I win" is really not worthy of the art of debating!
I can remove it, although I would caution you not to use comments as the basis of your decision, since that discussion is all happening outside of the debate itself.
Here is your vote for reference:
"I expected slightly more from this but it seems rudimentary so I can be more brief. Con provided a definition of democracy, seemingly a commonplace one that perfectly encompasses the United States. Pro's argument appeared to be akin to the nirvana fallacy, and did not sufficiently combat the categories laid out by the contender. I get the impression that the US is an indirect democracy, and pro's notions of imperfection were not enough to disprove this."
Stop your games novice.
Can you remove my current vote for now?
I may have to change my vote, I want to rather, but the time has ended. I would have left it as a placeholder tie, because I can add more analysis based on what people are bringing up in the comments section and I should actually go through some of the arguments.
I critized that you didn't refer to pro's arguments, not that I don't understand your arguments
If you understand what Senators and House Representatives are, as well as governors, a lot becomes clearer about how the US is a democracy.
You just explained the US system but didn't really address pro's arguments - by doing so you would be much more convincing. For example Jesper stated that US presidents can win the election with minority support and that studies show that the opinion of one person doesn't really matter in the US - you didn't refer to these pointsl
Okay, I feel the same about Pro with my arguments.
i think rationalmadmane has not really understood the arguments
He is arguing that it is not pure mob rule enough for his liking.
I felt it was irrelevant as something does not need to be an extreme democracy to be a democracy the definitions spoke for themselves there.
It is up to you and other voters to decide if I made a mistake or Pro did.
Did RationalMadman even read and fully understand pro's arguments?
Please vote, thanks.
Most americans have no education or knowledge needed to build a prosperous nation. I recommend they read "On the principle of Juche" by Kim Jong Il.
What is the definition of democracy and republic? And are we going with the classical understanding of republic or the classically liberal view of republic? And is a democracy simply a majority vote, as the classical liberals understood it? Or is it the way 21st century Democrat Party understands it, as the government having a popular vote for officials and then doing whatever it wants once in power without any checks or balances other than another vote?
Without these definitions it is impossible to actually have this debate. Because, in the classically liberal sense, America is not a democracy, because it is not based solely on a majority vote. It is a Republic, which is based on controlled representation in government, where the people get just enough representation to have a voice, but not a bigger voice than the government itself. In this case, America is a republic.
But if we are going by the ancient understanding of a Republic, then it could be a dictatorship, a warrior king society, or a society built on natural rights, since all of these were called a "republic" in ancient times. In this case, America is a Republic.
And if we are going by the 21st century Democrat Party definition of a republic, then America does not qualify as a Republic, because of the huge scores of unelected bureaucrats determining policy without the people's majority voice.