You are on page 1of 3

Democracy vs.


America as a republic, democracy run amuk

Our nation was defined by the founding fathers as a democratic-Republic. It’s

important to think about intent in terms of the time of 1776 and the contrast
between the absolute and constitutional monarchies of the day and the Republic
that they sought to create.

Aristotle would say that best form of government would be a constitutional

aristocracy, in the purest form meaning, “Rule of the best” with equality under the
law for all. A democratic-republic if managed by an informed electorate could
accomplish just this.

Our republic was and is meant to function along the lines of the roman and venetian
republics. With a limited, civic minded electorate functioning as a kind of collective
monarch. Meaning that the privilege of the vote is a great burden to acquire and
exercise, to keep it from becoming taken for granted and abused. Political self-
determination is a constant ,active process that must be engaged with and
manicured throughout the civic life and not just during an election process.

The founders intended that only those who were entrenched in and took
responsibility for their community would have the vote, and thus maintain a
limited-well informed electorate to represent their local communities at the
national scale.

When this ethic is perverted into the seething mass of the polis having the vote it
becomes a blind, deaf monstrosity chained to the tyranny of the majority. As Ayn
rand would say, the ultimate minority in the individual.

Voting requirements:
Let’s look at the qualifiers they used in 1776: This is mainly based on established,
primogeniture law.

5: 21
About 6% of the population had the vote in 1776
About 100 % voted in every election between 1776 and 1789

In 2016 100% of the citizens are eligible to vote.

In the last presidential election only 53% of the population voted
Now there are two obvious ones here that have changed with the march of
civilization as a whole.

The first being the religious requirement, this was made at a time when religion
was extremely factional, catholics were agents of the papacy, jews were agents of
the tribe, Anglicans were agents of the crown ect. I, a catholic myself wouldn’t have
been able to vote, and under those circumstances I well may have been loyaly first
to the throne of st.peter.

Second is the gender requirement, which at the time women, prior to the sufferage
acts as a whole still enjoyed being a protected class and did not want the vote, as the
1929 poll showed when 76% of women said they did not want the civic
responsibilities that came with the vote.

It is not a matter of these two requirements changing but of their subjects changing.
Now citizens are loyal to their countries first and their religions head second, and
women have decided they no longer wish to be a protected class and to join men as
equal members of the civic society.

The other requirements and their subjects have not changed, and remain as
pertinent now as they were at the founding of our country.

Why we have to go back:

Europeans are necessary for European ideas of self-determination and rational,
informed deliberations and governance. A certain baseline of cultural development
is nessisary to understand the abstract concepts of democracy and rise above tribal
ingroup-preference. The large german population in the thirteen colonies
assimilated so well that now german-americans are the largest racial group in the
usa, so similar to the English that today it would be impossible to differentiate
between a german American and british American culturally. Other, non europeon
groups, without that shared culture of self-determination and enlightenment ideas
are much slower to assimilate if they do at all.

The second consideration to entertain is one of property, or in modern terms to be

financially stable, owning a stake in one’s own community. This takes the form of
owning a house, patches of land or really any assets or absence of debts. Only when
a citizen is a stable, contributing member of society can they be trusted to vote in
the conscience of the American whole, and not simply for a quick fix of resources,
forever trapping countless million single issue voters in the dependency of the
welfare state.

An uninformed, factional, antithetical constituency will forever be a tyranny of the

majority, held hostage to the whims of the cicada like populace, emerging only once
a year to flex their civic muscles.
The vote is the sacred ideal that holds the state together in the absence of a
monarch. Perhaps it is time we examine the state of our republic in contrast to the
values it was founded on.