Talk:Republicanism in the United States

message: This section is laughably historically inaccurate.  The glaring problem is that the FIRST political party in the United States was the Democratic Republican party founded by Jefferson.  The term democratic has never been perjorative in the US.  THe authors of this article are trying to make it so!  I won't try to fix this article because its sucha flaming pile of horse crap.
Zoratao (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: the Federalists were the first party. In the 1790s Federalists used the term "democrat" to ridicule the Jeffersonians and so they avoided it until the Federalists collapsed. Rjensen (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  From the article on William Grayson, As an Anti-Federalist (one of the men who in Virginia called themselves "Republicans"), he joined George Mason, James Monroe, and Patrick Henry in opposing ratification of the United States Constitution at the Virginia Ratification Convention in 1788. from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Grayson WithGLEE (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  re "the tension between the aristocratic federalists and the democratic Republicans". "Aristocratic" is a very nasty term used by Republicans but not by the Federalists & not by historians. (aristocrat = inherited status & power of dukes, earls & counts; it did not exist in USA). The Jeffersonian Republicans were indeed more democratic (small-d) in the North, but not in the South where they had a base among plantation owners and leaders like the aristocratic John Randolph or Roanoke. Rjensen (talk) 06:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

text:  I'm not sure I follow your point.  You've ascribed the use of the term "aristocratic" to the wrong person.  My personal feelings about Hamilton and Washington, which happen to be more favorable than towards Jefferson et. al., are not what's at question here.  My point is that this section promotes one side of the tension between the Republican's and the Federalists, namely the Federalist position, and ignores the other.  Aristocracy is amongst other things an oligarchy, and literally means "rule by the excellent" and since the gents that we are talking about were well versed in Greek and Latin I am sure they new the etymological roots and real meaning of the words they used.  Factors such as birth are the cultural connotation added to the word later, the original concept was more meritocratic, of course Greeks thought merit was inborn.  But, I really digress.  As you've pointed out, '"Aristocratic" is a very nasty term.'  I would disagree that it is as nasty as you claim, unless you were particularly republican, or anti-monarchy.  In the American psyche the terms monarchy, oligarchy, and aristocracy are closely related, mostly because of the historic context and rebellion the founded the nation.  My point is that "democrat" was used as an epithet by the Federalists and "aristocrat" was used as an epithet by the Republicans and its level of negativity was contingent on your vision for what the US should have been.  To put too fine a point on it, Washinton's quote states that there are "professed democrats." (spelling mine) So I still contend that the term wasn't "mostly" pejorative, or at least it hasn't been established.  Was it used as a pejorative?  Sure.  But people who self-described as "democrats" also saw the other side as being "anti-republican" or "aristocratic."  If that's what you want to get at in this section, fine, then make the full point.  Otherwise this section is NNPOV. Zoratao (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Washington launched a very strong attack: "George Washington in 1798 complained, "that you could as soon scrub the blackamoor white, as to change the principles of a profest Democrat; and that he will leave nothing unattempted to overturn the Government of this Country" -- he is saying the Jeffersonians are trying to overthrow the elected government  of John Adams.  As far as "oligarchy" that needs careful handling. Jeffrey A. Winters - (2011) says Jefferson, "was obsessed only with the European version of oligarchy based on birth and continuing across generations." -- ie inherited power as seen in the European nobility/aristocracy.  The Federalists never endorsed or practised inherited political power; both sides were OK with inherited landed wealth. However Jefferson opposed primogeniture because it would concentrate a family's wealth in one son, and one grandson & one greatgrandson. Rjensen (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on Democracy 

message: As of 12:52 A.M. Eastern Standard Time (USA) of the 14th of June 2010, the opening paragraph to this article is outstanding, perfectly detailing what a republic is and how a republic is clearly different than a democracy. Preserve it!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.249.129 (talk) 04:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I listened to the Smith undergraduate survey lecture and it is reasonably close to the text here--where is the deviation. Smith does reject Qualitynotquantity's argument that these were "ideas put forth by historians of the 1940's and 1950's."Rjensen (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The lede says: "republicanism is a political ideology."  As for the Scottish Common Sense business, most historians date its influence much later. For example Shalhope and Bailyn do not not emphasize them.Rjensen (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening Paragraph, Great 

message: The intro paragraph is unnecessarily narrow in focus and scope (which Founders were you referring to specifically?), leaving out a wide range of influences, especially from Greek democracies, Italian republics, and a myriad of writers from France, Germany, and other countries.  This will require significant change.  Skyemoor 12:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The opening follows Bailyn and especially Pocock--who should we be following here? Rjensen 12:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which one states, "were primarily influenced by the "country" party in British politics"? My references for Jefferson, Madison, Henry, Franklin, and Adams do not show such a tilt.  Perhaps more depth is needed here, or at least less reliance on one or two sources.  Skyemoor 13:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Banning (Jeffersonian Persuasion) also covers the ground esp re Jefferson, Adams and Madison. Likewise see Gordon Wood in several books (incl recent one on Franklin) and don't miss the major Shalhope articles. Rjensen 11:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diverse Influences 

message: It is often heard that, "the U.S. is not a democracy - it is a republic". And just as often, the discussion stops there without explaining the difference. Wikipedia does not specifically discuss or address this difference. Henry Delforn (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: From my reading, there is a huge difference between a democratic form of government and a republican form of government. And that difference can simply be given by how decisions come to be made. In a democratic form of government, all participants (those who submit to being governed) have a voice. All participants are thus expected to have an interest and a knowledge about the subject matter. This of course is never the case ... that's why propaganda works so well. The decisions are made by majority rule. In a republican form of government, the participants (those who will submit to the government), give their participation in decision making over to representatives. These representatives, not the participants, study the issues and make the decisions. Such decisions may be made by various degrees of consensus. Regardless, it is a delegated authority that the representatives operate under. Propaganda is largely ineffective in this form of government but it is a fertile breeding ground for corruption. Our (the USA) government has slowly gravitated by being necessarily representative (republican) form ... necessitated by communication issues, to largely democratic form  ... enabled by resolving those communication issues. However, with propaganda, and the concentration of the power to control communication, that has really delivered us to a largely authoritarian form of government ... a special kind of slavery where the participants really think they are participating. And again, improvements in communication, like the internet (obviating control) are again transitioning our form of government. WithGLEE (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: the article is about the philosophy of republicanism. it's not about representation. Rjensen (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "Republicanism" and "Republic" are different words with different meanings in different contexts. Basically, "Republicanism" is about the citizens, while "Republic" is about the government. Rjensen (talk) 04:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Rjensen: Maybe you need to tell these people about your new context: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/republicanism WithGLEE (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: They do not give a definition of "republicanism." Perhaps they should purchase a copy of the Merriam-Webster 3rd unabridged dictionary. It has this definition, which does not use the word "republic": "1 : adherence to or sympathy for a republican form of government : republican practices or spirit : attachment to republican principles or institutions *republicanism, driven underground by the era of reaction, was kept alive— Times Literary Supplement* *popular democratic sentiment came forth as republicanism— Alfredo Mendiz*bal Villalbo* Rjensen (talk) 06:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone needs to be taken to task in the dictionary writing business. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republican. (1) Republican : a member of the Republican party of the U.S. (2): a person who believes in or supports a republican form of government(3)Republican : a person from Northern Ireland who believes that Northern Ireland should be part of the Republic of Ireland rather than the United Kingdom. When you define a word with itself, you gain no ground. You can't get there from here. So we're left to go find the root word republic ... and we find: : a country that is governed by elected representatives and by an elected leader (such as a president) rather than by a king or queen. This suggests the distinction is in the word "elected". But the king or queen was originally put in place by a form of election (an election that is never repeated). The real distinction is in the word "representative". The election in a republic is by "representatives". If you form an organization made up of representatives taken from 50 people, and that has 6 levels, that organization can "represent" 2.5 times as many people as now exist on Earth (i.e 50 raised to the 6th power). And it would be possible for every person to know "personally" the representative they are electing. That is a true republican form a government. It's not republican if there is no practical way for the person you elect to know you or for you to know them. That is a democracy. In a democracy you can participate and be clueless about the subject matter. That is less possible with a republic ... and that "is" the issue. Once you know the concept of a republic, you know a republican, and you know republicanism. If you confuse, misuse, distort, or compromise the root word, you are lost. And we are seemingly lost, as from the Latin it "republic" seems to derive from "respublica" which evidently means wealth or thing of the public.WithGLEE (talk) 12:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republic versus democracy 

message: This article/entry is really in need of work. It is awful. It needs to be attended to by people who have bothered to read up on the origins of republicanism. That means some study of the ancient Greeks and a fellow named Plato. Perhaps you've heard of him? I suggest this article, a speech actually, by conservative historian and academic Forrest McDonald, as a starting point
http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?Itemid=267&id=177&option=com_content&task=view
And this book by McDonald
http://www.amazon.com/Novus-Ordo-Seclorum-Intellectual-Constitution/dp/0700603115  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.100.68.98 (talk) 07:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article/Entry really needs work 

message: This is the sentence I most object to:
:Republicanism is not the same as democracy, for republicanism asserts that people have unalienable rights that cannot be voted away by a majority of voters, whereas in a democracy the voters can terminate the rights of an unpopular minority.
The citation is Fareed Zakaria's book Illiberal Democracy. However, the citation does not prove the point. In order to back up that sentence, you have to have someone actually saying how "republicanism" is different from "democracy," not just that democracy can be illiberal. Furthermore, as our article on "illiberal democracy" states, some people say Zakaria is wrong, or at least that his terminology is muddled. Indeed, many definitions of "democracy" include civil rights, meaning that, according to those definitions, a "democracy" that "terminates the rights of an unpopular minority" is not a democracy at all. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: whose definitions of democracy restrict the powers of the majority? need more than "some people say". Of course the article is about republicanism & democracy in the US only. Here's a representative RS: "Thus, what Justice Story had feared when he opposed Jacksonian democracy had come to pass. Under the impact of a depression, the popular majority in several states had decided to regulate and restrict the minority's property rights." Democratic  theories and the Constitution (1984) by Martin Edelman p 10 Rjensen (talk) 05:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article democracy discusses this in detail, with many citations along those lines. If you're going to say "The difference between republicanism and democracy is that in a democracy, the rights of the minority can be legislated away," you need a quote that says that whole thing -- not in those exact words, necessarily. Zakaria's use of the term "illiberal democracy" doesn't do that, nor does your second-hand quote of Joseph Story's criticism of Jacksonian democracy. Furthermore, since you're no doubt aware that your viewpoint on this is clearly not universally accepted (unlike, say, the fact that the capital of Maine is Augusta), if you're going to bring it up, you have to provide a summary of all viewpoints on the issue. You can't, in Wikipedia, say straight-out that democracy means mob rule -- even if you can find a citation that agrees with that -- anymore than you can say that global warming is a myth and leave it at that. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 06:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rephrased it in terms of the tyranny of majority theme; and no, the "democracy" article deals with world history and does not say much about the issue re the U.S. Mwalcoff's complaints about there being a lot of different views are too vague to take seriously since he fails to cite any RS that endorses his position.  If Mwalcoff does have the RS then he can please add them to the article, rather than subtract information that is based on several RS.Rjensen (talk) 09:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see that the definition of democracy (the rule of the people) includes protection of the individual against the majority.  As it happened democracy developed after liberalism and liberal democracies do provide protection for individuals against the majority.  TFD (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

text: The Zakaria statement makes sense, although, the U.S. Constitution can be amended by the people. Maybe that could be addressed in the article. For example, Prohibition, was repealed in the United States. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illiberal democracy 

message: What is the source for saying that taxpaying requirements for exercising the franchise were defunct by 1855?  My grandfather was denied the vote for failing to pay the poll tax in the 1920s; the Poll Tax Amendment (Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution) wasn't ratified until the 1960s.  75.201.45.51 (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Egregious error in article 

message: This article is ridiculous, citing ideologically radical think tanks like the Ayn Rand Institute and the Liberty Fund to advance a specious minority review. Delete.66.57.57.178 (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: the Ayn Rand link was to an article that did not deal with republicanism, so I deleted it. The Liberty Fund item is an essay by Eric Foner a leading historian, former president of the American Historical Association & last year's winner of the Pulitzer prize, so it stays. Rjensen (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Openly propagandistic, does not belong on Wikipedia

message: In trying to copyedit this article for style consistency, I got hung up on this passage:
“The commitment of most Americans to republican values and to their property rights helped bring about the American Revolution.[citation needed *I added this by hand - I don't know how to do it correctly?] Britain was increasingly being seen as corrupt and hostile and that of a threat to the very idea of democracy; a threat to the established liberties that colonists enjoyed and to colonial property rights.[21] The greatest threat to liberty was thought by many to be corruption – not just in London but at home as well. [This sent. is an UNSUPPORTED OPINION, not a fact. Doesn't belong; recommend DEL.]  The colonists associated it with luxury and, especially, inherited aristocracy, which they condemned.
Historian Thomas Kidd (2010) argues that during the Revolution Christians linked their religion to republicanism. He states, "With the onset of the revolutionary crisis, a major conceptual shift convinced Americans across the theological spectrum that God was raising up America for some special purpose."[22] [Similarly, why include some modern writer's “argument” here? He does NOT support his assertions with any FACTS, i.e., contemporaneous quotes made by a founding father, for example. As such, this passage barely rises above the level of mere pro-Christian propaganda. A bias Wikipedia seeks to avoid.]  Kidd further argues that "new blend of Christian and republican ideology led religious traditionalists to embrace wholesale the concept of republican virtue."[23] As virtuous republicans, citizens had a growing moral obligation to eradicate the corruption they saw in the monarchy.[24]  [Again, ARGUMENTS with NO supporting FACTS = OPINION.]
In all, I'd recommend deleting this whole passage, it has perishingly little to do with CAUSES OF THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR (as written). If original Wiki author sees this, I would invite him/her to rewrite section using actual historical sources to support these arguments, if they wish to maintain they DO, in fact, belong in this article.  Till then, I remain unconvinced.
What say my fellow Wikipedians?
Cynthisa (talk) 09:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The section on Republicanism and the American Revolution is based on Bernard Bailyn, J.G.A. Pocock,  Gordon Wood and Thomas Kidd -- leading scholars (all alive) who have had a major influence on the hundreds of other historians who have written on the topic. As for "opinions" Their analysis has been studied by hundreds of historians who cited all the time. They are reliable sources and Wikipedia is based entirely on reliable sources.  Cynthisa Does not tell us what reliable sources they are using for their critique--. The scope business about propaganda, facts, and opinion is entirely the personal approach of one Wikipedia editor.  One place for the editor to start reading would be Craig Yirush,  "Bailyn, the Republican Interpretation, and the Future of Revolutionary Scholarship." Eighteenth-Century Studies 50.3 (2017): 321-325.  Rjensen (talk) 09:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: More weird propaganda not befitting this article (or Wikipedia)

message: Perspectives on Republicanism in the United States in this article appear to be from the point of view of American authors. As the topic is America but the perspective is not fixed, I encourage the improvement of the article so that this template may be removed. Universaladdress (talk) 09:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: you want the article on Republicanism, from which this is a spinoff. For a European perspective see the Becker, Clark, Everdell & Kramnick books, which are cited. Rjensen (talk) 09:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Template was removed without discussion and will be replaced. Please add additional perspectives to deal with the real issue the template is meant to address in good will. Thanks. Universaladdress (talk) 05:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The rationale is pretty confused --apparently Universaladdress does not realize that  Becker, Clark, Everdell & Kramnick (all cited in article) do provide a global perspective on the topic.Rjensen (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

text: I removed that tag. Without specifics of what should be added, it will not result in an improved article. Please don't just put the tag back without some direction on what need to change. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

text: And I've just removed it again.  Perhaps those adding it could explain more clearly what they think the problem is?  What the article 'appears' to be and 'encouraging improvement' aren't really adequate. The onus is on you to explain why you added it.  Specifics? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globalize 

message: As many others have noted this article is a complete mess.  It appears to be a vanity project run by one person pushing a specific fringe POV that does not comport with any mainstream political science usage.  What's worse is that this article is infecting other legit articles with links pointing to this nonsense.  This article represents the worst of wikipedia and should be deleted. 70.131.159.45 (talk) 05:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: anon does not provide the RS he is using on republicanism to make his personal judgments. Rjensen (talk) 09:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is junk 

message: This article seems to exclude the issue of slavery in the United States. Slaves did not have any rights in the Republic. They were considered Constitutionally 3/5 of a person or human property.
Indians were excluded from the United States citizenship. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Lincoln and many other antislavery leaders said (before 1861) slavery was a violation of republicanism (which requires consent of the governed). Rjensen (talk) 04:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Why was the Three Fifths compromise edited from the article. The Three Fifths Compromise is an established historical issue that took place at the Constitutional Convention. The current article omits that there was slavery in the United States and that slaves were not citizens. There is archeological evidence that slavery took place during the times of the Founding Fathers. There are valid historical sources that state slavery took place in America as early as the 1620's. Why is this subject excluded from the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: we only put in what the reliable secondary sources cover. As for slaves,  they were represented by their masters (as were white wives and children). In 1787 New England did not want slaves to have 100% representation (they wanted zero) so the 60% was a compromise. Rjensen (talk) 07:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

text: I apologize for using the T. Spencer Adams as a source, since apparently his book, Man of the People is a novel. However, the subject of slavery and Indians has not been addressed. Even if slaves, women, and children were represented by White males, this has not been put into the article. However, no laws were passed that protected slaves. The constitution viewed slaves as property, however, this was why the three fifths compromise was used. There at least needs to be mentioned African slaves were viewed as property. The only law that was passed was that you could hunt slaves if they escaped. Indians were certainly not represented by Congress. The three-fifths clause deserves to be mentioned since slaves directly affected Southern representation. Most of the slaves were in the South. Cmguy777 (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a brief section on slavery with two solid sources. I believe the reader needed to understand that Republican values set up by the Founding Fathers had incorporated slavery out of a compromise agreement. I added that slavery was predicated by race, i.e. black Africans. I have no desire for any edit wars. Thanks for your input Rjensen. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slavery and Indians 

message: It stresses liberty and unalienable rights as central values, makes the people as a whole sovereign, rejects aristocracy and inherited political power, expects citizens to be independent in their performance of civic duties, and vilifies corruption.[2]
This is not an accurate description of the republican party in the United States.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.140.253 (talk) 01:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  opening statement needs correction 

message: This section doesn't talk about the New Deal Era or anything for that matter. Why is it named so? Dumaka (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Kennedy was part of the New Deal era (1933-68) Rjensen (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Deal Era to present 

message: This article looks like it is just propaganda for the GOP party. "Republicanism" as an "American system of values" rather than "favoring a republic" does not actually seem to exist and is just something people who like the GOP assign all kinds of positive values to. Who defines what "Republicanism" even is? This article is idealization of a concept which does not even exist. Zozs (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: which reliable sources are you using?  Today both major parties fully endorse republicanism,.  The GOP (led by Greeley) in 1854 named itself after Jeffersonian Republicans, and they named themeselves after the concept. Rjensen (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm using common sense. This article unquestionably glorifies "Republicanism" and ascribes anything good to it. Any democratic political ideology at all can be said to "make the people sovereign", "stress liberty", "villify corruption" or "protect unalienable rights". Is it even accepted that "Republicanism" is an "actual ideology" rather than just the specific politics of the old Republican party and the new GOP which claims to follow them? Zozs (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a recent textbook (Foner, "Give Me Liberty" (2006) vol 1 p 126): He writes: REPUBLICAN LIBERTY: Liberty was central to two sets of political ideas that flourished in the Anglo American world. One is termed by scholars "republicanism"....Republicanism celebrated active participation in public life by economically independent citizens as the essence of liberty. Tracing its lineage back to Renaissance Florence and beyond that to the ancient world, republicanism held that man reached his highest fulfillment in public service. Republicans assumed that only property-owning citizens possessed "virtue"-defined in the eighteenth century not simply as a personal moral quality but as the willingness to subordinate self interest to the pursuit of the public good. "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom," wrote Benjamin Franklin. etc etc  Rjensen (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how that addresses my point. So you do not agree that this article talks about Republicanism as an overly good thing? This article makes it look like Thomas Jefferson et al. invented protection of minorities and other things which are actually part of any modern democracy. Basically this article is based on making anything which defines a modern democracy like it originated in America and "Republicanism". Zozs (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: the article never says where R is good or bad. Did modern republicanism (democracy) originate in US? not quite (the IDEA was European but the US was the first to put it into practice in 1776, followed by France in 1789. Britain reformed in 1830s Rjensen (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. I still partly don't agree with how this article is written up but I guess I can't really blame the "neutrality" here. Thinking over it the actual problem doesn't belong here but with other articles that were pushing this "Republicanism" ideology as something that is exclusively and accurately represented by the modern Republican party in the US and refer to this article and thus makes this article appear as propaganda for that party. I'll go take the concern up to the right place. Cheers. Zozs (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: yes I generally agree with your last post. :) Rjensen (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propaganda 

message: The first line of any article on "republicanism" should be ... a corruption of the word republic ... because it has nothing to do with "public wealth". Rather, it has to do with group control. Nobody ever thought a "Whig" was a person who didn't have real hair. Nobody every thought a gaily wrapped gift was wrapped by a sexually confused person. We openly corrupt our language.
I have always thought the distinction between a democratic form of government (mob rule) and republican form (delegated mob rule) was in the delegated or represented part. I have also never seen the delegate as being more powerful than the delegator (a new word?). I have never liked the democratic form because it is obvious, all the people that are weighing in on issues are not informed, even if they are interested. They seem to be compelled or desire to weigh in, but they're under no obligation to know why they choose one way or another. They are putty in the hands of propagandists.
Representatives, on the other hand, are selected by those who agree to benefit and be controlled by a collective (rather than behave strictly as individuals). As such, individuals are at the top of an inverted pyramid and "delegate down" those things they can not handle themselves. They should not delegate down those things they can decide and control themselves. They can not delegate an authority they don't have. A person delegating responsibility should (1) have the responsibility and authority to delegate and (2) know the delegate and (3) the delegate should know them.
This suggests several levels if large numbers of people choose to share control effectively. If you have groups of 25 people who elect and fund a representative and activities at the next lower level, you can represent the entire world's population with 7 levels, each level choosing a member to represent them and funding them in the next lower level. Bringing the group to 30 people, you can represent 3 times the current world's population. A major issue is "how are the groups formed"? In my opinion, you should be free to join any group at the top level that you please ... but of course only one group. No group should exceed nor be deficient in its limit in size by more than some margin (like 5). Once in a group, you can't leave and join another group for a substantial period of time (like a couple years). Lower levels should have a constant number of members, immediately replacing members chose from the leaving member's group, by the members of that group. A delegate gains no power over his delegators, because his delegators can remove him any time they choose (employing mob rule). Thus, the pay to the delegate does not escalate as he moves to a lower layer.
So, what is the word for a representative form of government I describe and would like to obtain (if it is not "the republican form")? WithGLEE (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Representative democracy, with the alternative being direct democracy. - SimonP (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since both must use some form of voting to settle issues, I don't see the need for the word democracy with two distinctions. One is a direct form of government ... the other is representative form of government. The alternative would be dictatorship ... a monarchy being a form of dictatorship with family transition of power. WithGLEE (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: WithGLEE needs to read this article more carefully.  It's about American ideology, not procedural rules.  It derives from "republican" not "republic." It comes from Paine, Franklin, Adams, Jefferson,Hamilton, Madison, Washington etc who built on British "outsiders" ("country" writers) and designed a value system in opposition to what they saw as the evils of the British system.  WithGLEE keeps referring to entirely different issues not related to the topic here. Rjensen (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Rjensen: It derives from "republican" not "republic." . WithGLEE needs to embrace the new "illogical think". Republican derives from republic. And republicanism derives from republican. But republicanism does not derive from republic. Go figure. When you corrupt the language, you corrupt your ability to reason with it. WithGLEE is an old person. He has personally witnessed the near total collapse of reason in his lifetime. Rjensen needs to read Maclay's journal. There he can see the decay starting as soon as the republic began to form ... in much the same fashion as Rjensen is demonstrating here. Interestingly as I read this journal and look into who W.Grayson was, I trip over this: As an Anti-Federalist (one of the men who in Virginia called themselves "Republicans"), he joined George Mason, James Monroe, and Patrick Henry in opposing ratification of the United States Constitution at the Virginia Ratification Convention in 1788. from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Grayson WithGLEE (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "Republican" was probably the single most important political term for the founding fathers. Two of Americans most important political parties adopted the word for their name. This article has many footnotes to show how the leading scholars of the last half-century explain how that happened come about. This Wikipedia article summarizes the work of those scholars. WithGLEE has not cited any of them. Nor has he read this article closely. Instead he wants to share with tells us what his personal understanding of what a different word ("republic") means to him.  I strongly suggest he read the famous article which tells how historians managed to figure it out: Robert E. Shalhope, "Toward a Republican Synthesis: The Emergence of an Understanding of Republicanism in American Historiography" (1972)  online here.  Rjensen (talk) 06:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the word for representative (contrasted with direct or democratic) government? 

message: In the second paragraph, sentence 2, I removed repeated ands, adding commas instead to help the initial author's idea flow instead of being a run-on sentence.  I also re-worded part of the third sentence in the first paragraph to make it easier to read. Brook597 (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing of this Article 

message: "Republicanism may be distinguished from other forms of democracy as it asserts that each individual has unalienable rights that cannot be voted away by a majority of voters."
:I've made two edits to this sentence, trying to make it more accurate, but by trying to make it more accurate, it seems that the sentence ends up having no purpose.
"Republicanism is a type of democracy, but if protected by a Bill of Rights, may be distinguished from other forms of democracy as a Bill of Rights asserts that each individual has unalienable rights that cannot be voted away by a majority of voters, unless the other type of democracies are also protected by a Bill of Rights."
:This is the odd, mess of a sentence I've turned it into. I was about to make a third edit to it, but realized that it would negate the premise of "Republicanism being distinguished from other forms of democracy", if I made the third edit.
Republicanism is, in fact, distinguished from other forms of democracy, but a Bill of Rights is actually the reason why people have unalienable rights. Republicanism doesn't have to have a Bill of Rights, and so it doesn't have to assert that each individual has unalienable rights. Furthermore, we know from the experiences of our country that, even with a Bill of Rights, those ideological "rights" aren't actually Rights, until the people democratically elect representatives in to change a law, or else discrimination continues. If the people oppose a group from getting Rights, while continuing to pass laws targeting the group they oppose, then they just have to keep voting in representatives who will do as they desire. Even the 3-branch system doesn't insure unalienable rights. 
Furthermore, even simply having a Constitutional Bill of Rights, under a Federal Republic, doesn't guarantee your rights, under the law. (See: Dred Scott v. Sandford).
So then, if we're going to be honest here, shouldn't that original sentence actually be deleted, since it holds no truth to it? Or is there a way it can be reworded?
The only thing which can guarantee unalienable rights is an actual adherence to those unalienable rights – no matter what form the government takes. KnowledgeBattle (Talk) | GodlessInfidel ︻╦╤── 08:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advice on how to reword this sentence, so that it's more accurate? 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Republic of the United States of America and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 7#Republic of the United States of America until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Privybst (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Republic of the United States of America" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: There is a section whose heading is "South, slavery, Jim Crow, and women's suffrage", which contains no mention of Jim Crow.  Readers (particularly non-US readers) cannot be expected to know what Jim Crow means. Adam1729 (talk) 03:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jim Crow