posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 04:08 AM
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Democracy - simple majority mob rule, can be representative or direct.
Constitutional Republic - a democratic government limited by supreme law which takes more than simple majority to change (the constitution), can be
representative or direct.
Representative government - people dont vote directly about laws, can be pure democracy (simple majority of representatives always win the vote), or
constitutional republic (representatives limited by supreme law (the constitution).
Direct government - people vote directly about laws, no representative middlemen, can be can be pure democracy (simple majority of voters always win
the vote), or constitutional republic (voters limited by supreme law which takes more than simple majority to change - the constitution).
Now we have cleared the terms, care to argue to the topic, instead of semantics? You have still not provided any reason why representative forms of
governments should be better than direct forms of government, all other things being equal (my original point, to which you first responded with
description of US representative republic, I dont know why..).
It is, in my opinion, a silly argument to get so entrenched in, but since only you at this point seems to understand what is meant by "direct
constitutional republic", and if you are so inclined to keep entrenching yourself on this matter, then perhaps your energy would be better spent
clarifying the matter better than you have.
Direct constitutional republic is a direct democracy with the addition of a constitution that requires more than simple majority to change. Or
alternatively, it is a constitutional republic where people directly vote about laws, instead of representative middlemen doing it for them (the two
descriptions are basically equivalent).
edit on 12/4/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)