Stupid people can also become a monarch or a despot, which is one of the problems of monarchism and despotism.

I think that what you've found is a flaw with humanity, not with democracy.

I think the key value of (our version of) democracy is the peaceful transition of power. For example from Clinton -> Bush -> Obama -> Trump. They all had very different views on what the country needed to do, but they all accepted that elections were how the future was decided and handed off power to someone they did not agree with.

In a monarchy or despotism, there is no transition of power by design. It is supposed to be difficult, because it is not wanted. So if you end up with the wrong choice it is very hard to correct.

A big part to this is that the voters have confidence in the result, hence they don't go around looting and starting civil wars.

Trump is scary. I am not of the US but: I fear if Trump wins. I fear the tantrum/insurrection of Trump if he loses in respect to a peaceful handover.

> you've found is a flaw with humanity, not with democracy

Well, yeah. BTW, I didn't say I have a better idea, I merely pointed out an issue.

[edit: retracted]

This is called sortition, and the only common use of it in the US today is for drawing juries.

To be clear, the US is a constitutional republic and not a democracy, and the constant use of the word democracy dilutes this fact.

This is a red herring, here is the definition of democracy: "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."

The US clearly fits in here. The US is not a direct democracy, but neither is any other country in the world, including Switzerland that perhaps is the one I know of that comes closest.

Given the subtopic I commented on was bringing up NYMBYs and political process and the word democracy, I don't see this as a red herring, or an attempt to divert or smokescreen the argument; I simply stated the US is a constitutional republic, which some would argue further and label it a federal republic. It seems your quote is from lexico.com. How do you respond when someone asks you what type of government does the US have?

Here is what you said: "To be clear, the US is a constitutional republic and not a democracy, and the constant use of the word democracy dilutes this fact."

Here is what happens when you google democracy: "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy: 1a: government by the people especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

dictionary.com: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.

You said the US is not a democracy, all definitions I can find says it is.

Except that the proposition system in California, and other states, is direct democracy.

The end result is that many state and local issues are resolved through direct voter action.

I don't know where you picked up the meme of "the US is a republic not a democracy" but you might want to read up about the reaction against it:

https://mises.org/wire/stop-saying-were-republic-not-democra...

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-04-11/is-u-s...

https://thebaffler.com/latest/were-a-republic-not-a-democrac...

I picked up the "meme" long before the word "meme" entered the vernacular in the sense that I think you are using it. I had the good fortune of attending a Jesuit HS in NYC when grammar was prescriptive rather than descriptive, you took two years of Latin, and studied world religions, and the preciseness of language mattered. Mr. Caruso, my sophomore year History teacher, asked the first day back to school, "Is the United States a democracy?". Like most I said 'Yes'. He then lectured on early U.S., and other types of governments. It was an eye opener for me, and taught me to question my assumptions, and try to be more precise in my language and arguments (logical ones, not emotional ones). My comment about "diluting" comes from people throwing the term about to a point that it becomes meaningless out of context. For a similar commentary, this quote in the Wikipedia entry for a search on "democracy", seems in agreement: " However, the noun "democracy" has, over time, been modified by more than 3,500 adjectives which suggests that it may have types that can elude and elide this duality."

Thanks for the links. I found the first link interesting and then disappointing, since I had worked at a bookstore in NYC in the early 90s that carried a lot of philosophy books, economics books mainly from the Austrian School, and so the mises.org link caught my eye. Ryan McKaken the author of the article basically dismisses the use of "we're a republic and not a democracy" when used as an argument in two cases of what he believes people are thinking. I was pointing out that we are not simply "a democracy", but more precisely constitutional republic, no more, no less.

How do you answer the question, "What type of government does the U.S. have?"

Thank you for that context, even if it mostly relates to your personal experience and back story. I agree that we should be careful how we use words, but I don't think you can easily argue that "democracy" has become meaningless out of context, while also imposing your own idiosyncratic context to claim that the US isn't a democracy.

As to your question, I would say that the U.S. constitution defines (indeed, guarantees) the country as having "a republican form of government" (at the state level, but this is maintained at the federal level), and that the processes and principles that it puts in place, such as representative elections, qualify that system as democratic.

I feel that's nitpicking. The values of democracy are constantly advertised in all political discourse in this country.

The values of democracy are touted in Hong Kong too, but that doesn't make it a democracy. Small groups with a NYMBY position, or large PACs depend operate on our current form of government, which is why I made the precise distinction in my comment. The 2016 election outcome was via the electoral college, and not the popular vote.