US election system. Is the US really a democracy, or a duocracy?

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Technically its a constitutional republic, and the founding fathers generally hated democracy because it led to the tyranny of the majority. They designed the federal government to avoid a majority repressing a minority. That is why there are three branches, elected in different ways, each accountable to the others, with one (judicial) not elected directly by the people. And on top of that constitutionally guaranteed rights to prevent the government from repressing the people or a minority.

Its a very logical system. Everything has a purpose, and preventing a majority rule is a the heart of it. Majority rule is the very thing you are complaining about in your op figment.

Uhm. The founding fathers were wise enough to split up the powers and form a constitution yes. Like pretty much every other government that has democratic principles, whether republic or democracy. Beyond that, the founding fathers aren't that special.

They clearly didn't hate tyranny by the majority, because that's the system they created on both state and national level by doing the "all votes go the slight majority in a state". Either that, or they had the idea that different states would bring different parties to power and didn't think of the scenario where only two organized parties came into existence and get the majority.

Basically, they didn't think hard enough about actual practicality of the system.

Either way, I don't really get how you can pretend the majority tyranny is not in this system, but in a democracy. This system ensures dictatorship on a state and national level, while a democracy first has to form a majority out of factions without giving any more power to miniscule majority to form an absolute majority and thus a position of dictatorial power.

In the US, all power is handed to one faction who don't even need to account to anyone else. The argument behind that is that you don't need to compromise. Meaning you can do radical reforms in favour of the party in command without having to compromise on anything, not having to tone down on anything.


I'm not sure if you understand what a majority tyranny is. In a democracy, the majority is not tyrannical, because it has to account for other people than themselves. I think you're blinded by patriotism here, but your republican system sucks in comparison to democracy.