Gerrymandering in US States

[_subgenius]

"It must be acknowledged that the term 'republic' is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea, I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816.

For Jefferson a pure republic and a pure democracy are quite the same.

Does not appear to be the same, nor does Jefferson say whatever drivel you are saying...unless you do not understand basic English and basic political systems - then they might appear to be the same.
for what it's worth, Jefferson does not equate "Republic" with "Democracy" is your citation...in fact, I do not read the word "democracy" in your quote at all.

https://mises.org/wire/why-james-madison-hated-democracy

<insert some guys counter-opinion here, but present it as fact>

Um, huh?...other than, "this guy disagrees", so what?

Notice that the basic definition of democracy is just a "government by the people." Notice also that a more specific definition includes a government by representatives of the people. To say that the Founding Fathers were opposed to democracy is absurd.

No one said the FF's were opposed to anything...the discussion is about whether (1) the US is Democracy, and (2) the reality that a Republic and a Democracy are different political systems - with the former being the US's and the latter not.

Their whole purpose was to establish government by the people. They called their government a "republic," which is a form of democracy

Nope, a Republic is not a form of Democracy. Quit being ignorant...its like saying Socialism is a part of Democracy or that Democracy is a part of socialism....all of these lowest-common-denominator fund raising techniques are ignorant and they make your posts appear the same.

, but it is not a "pure" democracy.

I do not even know what "pure" democracy can mean...do you? Can someone be "not a pure racist" ?...alas, your post certainly is "pure ignorance".

Confusion arises when "democracy," a generic term, is equated with "PURE democracy," a specific kind of democracy which ours is not.

KG: democracy *basic and generic* is defined as "government by the people"
also KG: US democracy is not "government by the people"

James Madison outlined the problems with democracies in his Federalist Paper #10.

Thanks Mr Trebek, but so what is the relevance of which FP# in this context?

[_Kevin Graham]

Subs asks what a "pure democracy" is as if I just made that up. But it was in the context of his own citation provided above. Proving he was just quote mining all along with no understanding of context. He then asks what Federalist #10 has to do with anything, which again is the source of his quotation above.

The blue is only what subs quoted...

"From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union." - Federalist #10

Notice subs doesn't understand the word "such" refers to something specific. He wasn't referring to all forms of democracy, but "such" democracies as described in the context. What kind would that be? Any moron who actually read the context would know: "... pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction"

In other words, Madison is not describing anything resembling our democracy, he was bitching about factions within the country throughout local governments who were making his BIG GOVERNMENT ideal difficult to achieve.

Subs is an epic moron who doesn't understand we're a democracy and a republic.

[_EAllusion]

Your reply is correct KG, but also besides the point because we are not debating the 18th century meaning of the words democracy and republic. These terms have meaning in modern political science and Subgenius does not understand them. His “actually, we’re a Republic...” is an archetypal example of being an ignorant pedant. What sucks is he either does not remember his schooling or was taught poorly.

[_Kevin Graham]

Your reply is correct KG, but also besides the point because we are not debating the 18th century meaning of the words democracy and republic. These terms have meaning in modern political science and Subgenius does not understand them. His “actually, we’re a Republic...” is an archetypal example of being an ignorant pedant. What sucks is he either does not remember his schooling or was taught poorly.

He brought up 18th century quotations so...

[_subgenius]

Subs asks what a "pure democracy" is as if I just made that up.

Nope, never implied or said that you made it up...maybe that you did not know how to use it (still don't), but also noting that it was not relevant.

Either way, pure democracy, democracy, or diluted democracy our country is not.

Subs is an epic moron who doesn't understand we're a democracy and a republic.

Yet we are not. We are Republic. We have never been a democracy nor do we practice a democratic political system. Just because your messaging masters have packaged "democracy" to align with their affiliation does not mean we are both...just like how it is ignorant to say "democratic socialism" or "benevolent dictator". How you have managed to become ignorant of the difference between political rhetoric and political systems is no longer a mystery...you are simply uneducated on either topic.

Again, while you have bothered to copy/paste you have (once again) not bothered to comprehend:

note -
" pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person"

So, how do you propose that the form of democracy which you imagine that exists in the USA differs from what is being defined here?

(i can wait for you to google something from Maddow, or perhaps you would rather try and form your own educated response based on actual political science.)

[_subgenius]

Your reply is correct KG,

You agreeing with it is not the same as it being correct. But I appreciate your arrogance.

but also besides the point because we are not debating the 18th century meaning of the words democracy and republic.

True, and no one is using 18th century quotes to define either. We are relying upon actual political science (contemporary should you prefer) to recognize that Democracy and Republic are distinct political systems, with the latter being applicable to 18th, 19th, 20th, and (so far) 21st century USA. (if only I read FP#39)

These terms have meaning in modern political science and Subgenius does not understand them.

Again, the arrogance of your proclamations is admirable, but unfounded. Modern political science (and the dictionary) recognizes that Democracy and Republic are 2 distinct political systems....but yeah, I can concede that some DNC think-tankers will frame an argument for these systems to be analogous (see also marketing/branding comments prior).

But for kicks, I am willing to read your evidence that "ancient" political science and "modern" political science have different meanings for those words.

His “actually, we’re a Republic...” is an archetypal example of being an ignorant pedant.

It is also an example of being accurate and correct.
You being susceptible to contemporary branding and marketing techniques is quickly becoming archetypal.

What sucks is he either does not remember his schooling or was taught poorly.

Again, you proclaim much and support nothing.

Allow me to be clear, so as to avoid having to further read yours and KG's awful presuppositions, assumptions, and desperate inferences.

1. Democracy = the majority may impose its will on the minority.
2. Republic = the majority is unable to take away inalienable rights.
3. Democracy = ruled by the majority and contains no protection for the minority against the power of the majority.
4. Republic = ruled by majority/minority but contains protection for the minorty against the power of the majority.
5. Democracy = equal participation with the interest of the majority is the most important.
6. Republic = representative particpation with simultaneous protection of minorty / control of majority.
7. Democracy is unable to prevent or protect the minority from being entirely overruled or unrepresented.
8. Republic is able to prevent or protect the minority from being entirely overruled or unrepresented.

[_canpakes]

Again, the arrogance of your proclamations is admirable, but unfounded. Modern political science (and the dictionary) recognizes that Democracy and Republic are 2 distinct political systems....but yeah, I can concede that some DNC think-tankers will frame an argument for these systems to be analogous (see also marketing/branding comments prior).

But for kicks, I am willing to read your evidence that "ancient" political science and "modern" political science have different meanings for those words.

Meanwhile, even those crazy liberal loons at National Review think that the US is a bit of both:

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine ... -republic/

Sorry, subs. You’ve been outvoted. ; )

[_aussieguy55]

So the GOP sweating on Ginsberg either retiring or falling off her perch. So the plan is get as many conservative judges in who can challenge any democratic bills? What is the point of voting in your country. A democracy what a joke.

[_moksha]

And yet, Salt Lake City's apparently very popular Mayor, Jackie Biskupski, Is not only a non-Mormon and a liberal Democrat, but is also openly gay! She was also reelected 6 times to the Utah State Legislature before retiring from that to run for Mayor.

Not all state districts can be gerrymandered successfully. However, they have contained non-Mormons/Democrats to as few legislative seats as possible. On the congressional level, Salt Lake County has been divided into three separate districts.

[_moksha]

So the GOP sweating on Ginsberg either retiring or falling off her perch. So the plan is to get as many conservative judges in who can challenge any democratic bills?

While it is beyond the scope of judges to challenge bills, the goal is to have enough conservative justices to interpret the law in such manner as to bring back either the Antebellum South or perhaps even feudalism. #MAFA