Posted on 10/31/2025 1:58:29 AM PDT by CIB-173RDABN
When Democrats today say they want to “save democracy,” conservatives often counter that the United States is not a democracy but a republic. Both sides are right in their own way—but they’re talking about two very different visions of government.
When Democrats use the phrase “save democracy,” they mean it quite literally: rule by the majority. In that system, whoever gets the most votes wins, and the will of the majority is considered the highest form of legitimacy. This especially applies to the presidency, where Democrats argue that whoever wins the most votes nationwide should occupy the Oval Office. To them, anything else—like the Electoral College—is unfair, outdated, or anti-democratic.
But the Founding Fathers rejected that very idea. They had seen what pure democracy produced in other nations, including in England’s parliamentary system, where a temporary majority could seize control and rule without restraint. They saw that the passions of the moment could sweep away the rights of the few, and that policy would swing wildly with every shift in public mood.
The Founders admired some parts of the British system—its respect for law, its experience with limited monarchy—but they also saw its instability. In Parliament, the majority is the government, and once it has power, there are few checks to stop it. The rights of citizens exist only as long as the majority allows them. To the Founders, that was too fragile a foundation for liberty.
They built something different: a republic. A system where the people still govern, but through layers of representation, separation of powers, and constitutional limits. It was designed to slow things down, to force deliberation, and to prevent fleeting majorities from remaking the nation in a moment of passion.
The Electoral College, the Senate, and the division of powers between states and the federal government all serve this purpose. They make sure that every region and every class of citizens has a voice, not just the biggest population centers. Without those safeguards, states like California and New York would decide every election, and the smaller states might as well not exist.
So when Democrats say they want to save “democracy,” they mean majority rule. When conservatives insist on preserving the “republic,” they mean constitutional balance—the system that protects everyone, not just the loudest or largest group at any given time.
The Founders didn’t reject democracy because they disliked freedom. They rejected it because they understood human nature: that passion and power need restraint, and that liberty endures only when even the minority has rights that the majority cannot touch.
In the states you mentioned and I could add more; the large
cities run the state and rural people are
dis-enfranchised. Our Federal system was designed to prevent
that sort of tyranny, but the states did not adopt that model.
If 51 percent voted to kill all Black People would that be good? that would be DEMOCRACY. Leftist stop talking about Democracy!
Great article! Thank you!
Here is democracy! If 51 percent said “lets kill all black people”...would that be DEMOCRACY? Should we do it because its the majority?
Tell me how I’m wrong!
You will enjoy.
Except when the majority vote against them, such as in Prop. 8.
We stopped teaching this in our schools and now an entire generation has no idea.
What maintained rural power in the states was that at least the upper house (Senate) of the legislatures was apportioned to permit representation of rural counties above their population numbers. In 1961, the Supreme Court ended these arrangements by requiring apportionment to be based on "one man, one vote". Suddenly, downstate Illinois, upstate New York, inland California, northern Michigan, et. al., lost their political leverage.
Too much information.
Democracy is 2 lions and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.
Great post! I totally agree! Our guys knew that Plato was onto something!
Thanks for posting. Mob rule supersedes individual rights.
The Athenian democracy was the creation of the leader of a second place noble family to establish permanent control of the city-state.
Why? Because non of us is as dumb as all of us.
Mod rules is always by the stupid savages resorting to force.
Democracy is two wolves and one sheep considering dinner.
It’s why Trump calling for the nuclear option is a real bad idea. Imagine a democrat party with a one vote majority. They could virtually destroy the country in short order.
It’s why Trump calling for the nuclear option is a real bad idea. Imagine a democrat party with a one vote majority. They could virtually destroy the country in short order.
Let me guess -- repeal the 17th Amendment? Never heard that one before.
Automatic spellcheck was bad enough. AI posts are much bigger piles of crap. Just today I noticed a weird sentence construction in a reply to me, I suspect it was an AI-generated text manually posted, but now I wonder.
They built something different: a republic. A system where the people still govern, but through layers of representation, separation of powers, and constitutional limits. It was designed to slow things down, to force deliberation, and to prevent fleeting majorities from remaking the nation in a moment of passion.
If you go back and read about it, we owe the rejection of majority rule to the Commonwealth of Virginia. At the time its boundaries extended to the Pacific and included parts of present day Mexico. It’s population already outnumbered most of the smaller colonies and no one was going to join a union where they would never have any say.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.