Quoted from Kevin March

That would be a representative republic we live in, the word democratic is not in any of the founding documentation.

The concept of a representative democracy and the concept of a republic are BOTH deeply enmeshed in
our founding document.    

The fact that we elect legislators and the chief executive rather than putting all of our decisions up
for a public referendum -- is proof that we have a representative democracy.

MT is basically suggesting that every decision made by our legislators and chief executive should be
based on public opinion polls or public referendum  --- that is NOT how are system of government was
ever envisioned or has ever operated.

In FACT - one could argue that the indirect election of US Senators through the individual state legislatures
originally in the Constitution and the indirect election of the President through the Electoral College which we
still use today -- BOTH point to a distrust of pure democracy ...  our founding fathers felt that some
decisions were best NOT left up to the "masses" but left in the hand of a learned elite.

And that my friends is exactly why there was such a Republican landslide in Congress this year.

Yall keep going AGAINST the will of the people ... see how 2011 / 2012 treats you.

Quite frankly, the folks who keep claiming that they are the defenders of the US Constitution (a.k.a. Tea
Party folks)  are  DEPLORABLY IGNORANT of the facts ...  how the document came to be ... the actual
stated intentions of our founding father.

The FACT is that our founding fathers did NOT wait for a majority of the voters to approve their writing
the US Constitution --- in fact their official charge was to AMEND the Articles of Confederation.  The men
gathered in Philadelphia decided --- on their own --- to scrap the Articles of Confederation.   There NEVER
was a public referendum on the new Constitution .. it was ratified by the state legislatures -- but even then
MANY folks (the MASSES) were never consulted.

The FACT is that our founding fathers did NOT trust the MASSES.   The Electoral College, the indirect election
of the United States Senate and a number of other features in the Constitution prove that --- and there
exists VOLUMES of writings from the hands of our founding fathers to back this up.

If you folks want a pure democracy go back to Ancient ATHENS ... and even there the pure democracy did
not last long -- and at its best ...  a HUGE portion of the Athenian population were NOT considered
citizens and able to participate in that pure democracy.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

The concept of a representative democracy and the concept of a republic are BOTH deeply enmeshed in
our founding document.    

The fact that we elect legislators and the chief executive rather than putting all of our decisions up
for a public referendum -- is proof that we have a representative democracy.

MT is basically suggesting that every decision made by our legislators and chief executive should be
based on public opinion polls or public referendum  --- that is NOT how are system of government was
ever envisioned or has ever operated.

In FACT - one could argue that the indirect election of US Senators through the individual state legislatures
originally in the Constitution and the indirect election of the President through the Electoral College which we
still use today -- BOTH point to a distrust of pure democracy ...  our founding fathers felt that some
decisions were best NOT left up to the "masses" but left in the hand of a learned elite.

Actually, a democracy is where each person votes on each issue, therefore, you cannot have a representative democracy.  The two words have separate meanings.  Democracy means that each person votes on each issue.  Representative means that they vote someone in to vote for them.  They do not go with each other.  You cannot do both.

Yes, it's a distrust of pure democracy, because we don't have a pure democracy.  The Senators were originally supposed to be elected by the state governments, with the lower house elected by the people.  It's called checks and balances.  

Quoted from Kevin March

Actually, a democracy is where each person votes on each issue, therefore, you cannot have a representative democracy.  The two words have separate meanings.  Democracy means that each person votes on each issue.  Representative means that they vote someone in to vote for them.  They do not go with each other.  You cannot do both.

Yes, it's a distrust of pure democracy, because we don't have a pure democracy.  The Senators were originally supposed to be elected by the state governments, with the lower house elected by the people.  It's called checks and balances.  

Actually you can have a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY --- that is what we have in America .. in Great Britain .. the concept has been around for over a couple thousand years.  That is basic civics that I taught to 7th
through 12 graders.

Ancient Athens tried "pure democracy" and it lasted about a generation ... and even then only "citizens"
were allowed to vote  (not women, not slaves, not indenture servants).

The indirect election of Senators by the state legislatures .. is exactly what I was talking about in my
previous posts  -- but that is not "checks and balances" -- that is an example of states' rights in relation
to the federal government and of REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY.

Checks and Balances is the concept of  the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches having certain
overlapping powers   ----- for example - the President negotiates treaties with foreign governments BUT
the US Senate must ratify (approve) the treaty before it take effect.      
Another example -- Congress passes laws - the President can sign it or veto it -- and the Courts can
interpret and/or declare it unconstitutional.

Another 1 of FDG's brilliant plans!