I mean, it isn't. It's a constitutional republic, but answer the question.
I mean, it isn't. It's a constitutional republic, but answer the question.
so what i am asking is, even if you take democracy to mean whatever you think it means, is the US not a democracy? It is really hard to see what your point was, because i asked if they thought the US was not a democracy, and here you are saying it is, so what are you trying to say? you agree with me, the US is a democracy, right?
In your previous post you said that the US is not a democracy, but a constitutional republic. Now you say that the US has a representative democracy, but operates as a constitutional republic, so I'm not sure what you mean anymore? You seem to agree that a constitutional republic can also be a democracy.
To answer your question, I agree with you the US is a democracy. The parent comment did not say that the US is not a democracy, it said that "companies and banks should invest only where democracy thrives". I take that to mean that this user believes that democracy is not currently thriving in the US, which I would agree with.
and yet, no explanation as to why. The people voted, the government abides.
do you ever get the idea that you tilt at windmills?
also is the DPRK or the DRC "Democratic"? It's in the name, so therefore they are democracies!
the US is a representative democracy, as far as "democratic" goes. a true democracy would be a 1:1 voter:vote, but that's untenable. most people interpret democracy to mean that the people have a say in government, but in the US, it's the constitution that limits the government and certifies our rights to complain at the government. That's why the US is a Constitutional Republic.
The implication of the person i was replying to was that the US is not a democracy, and i wanted to see what the reasoning was there. As i said, it isn't, but i am unsure if any country is an actual democracy. So it's a way to mess with the framing of an argument.
I wanted to know why that person implied the US wasn't. that's all.
btw, the word "democratic" and the like is loaded. Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The difference is, in the US, we at least pretend there's a chance for either party to get elected. And sometimes, we wistfully think that a third party candidate can moonshot, but that's not the way our system works. I have at least one friends that are political scientists, and their theses had to do with different forms of voting and the pros/cons of that, and how we could herald different systems into the united states.
so to directly answer your question: "no"