In Switzerland you have 4 referendums a year where the demos, the people, make decisions in concert.
In most republics, all you get to do is elect a representative. Some US states do hold referendums like California. This means that some republics do have representatives and the people share decision making power. This however does not happen at the level of the American Federal government. So far as I know, you can only vote on having someone speak for you and you are not part of the decision. These representatives are much more susceptible to capture than the entire demos.
It would be nice if the etymology of Rep in Republic came from Representation because that is all you get for sure. Sadly, that is not the case.
As to the stability of governments—I would also agree that a Republic is more robust and long lived than a tyranny. However, I still hold that a Republic is likely to end in tyranny because the incentive and the likelihood to capture becomes enticing and likely.
We do not disagree here. Would like to know if the distinction between the decision making power of a Swiss citizen and the decision making power of an American citizen seem meaningfully different to you as they do to me. The difference becomes even more stark if you compare the Dominican Republic and Switzerland as the Dominican Republic has even less democratic aspects than the US Federal Government (which incidentally has fewer Democratic characteristics than US states)
You should check out ballots from around the U.S. There is far more than "a representative" on them.
> These representatives are much more susceptible to capture than the entire demos.
I'm not sure that's true. Recent history hasn't shown the public does well with complex issues - that's why it's good to hire someone to focus on them.
The first point dosen’t really do anything for me because I did cite California as one of many US states holding a referendum.
The 2nd point is a more interesting debate and it may involve some preference.
For my money, I would much rather be Swiss than Singaporean.
Swiss trains run on time and the infrastructure is plenty good compared to Singapore. You could switch this out for a more free and still very competent state like Taiwan.
Of note: questions of citizenship in Switzerland are decided at the Canton, not the Federal level. Your neighbors are making the decision as to whether they want you to become a citizen. Not some far away bureaucrat.
An argument for your stated preference of more expertise is hinted at in this review in what I think is the book of the year, “The Premonition” by Michael Lewis. They cite a book “10% Less Democracy.” There is some merit to this in the short run—but in the long run, I would rather be Swiss. (And I would be on the side where I would be happy to have the union expect more responsibility from me. For example, I would not be in favor of shortening the time of service.)
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/06/th...
Americans have long referred to themselves, quite proudly, as a democracy. The distinction is otherwise a technicality for political scientists.
A recent political trend has one group, which fears getting outvoted, saying that it's not, that it's a 'republic' (they, of course, that they won't be the ones excluded from power). But the distinction is theoretical - government by the people, for the people, of the people, to use just one phrase, is what defines the US and the US is a democracy. We the people created the government and make the law.
> More recently, I’ve come to the conclusion that all Republics are doomed to fail.
Well the evidence is pretty bad. The most stable, successful form of government in history is modern democracy. If you want failure, look at the disasters of authoritarian governments, with their civil wars, weak economies, and governing calamities (e.g., hyperinflation, needless wars, etc.).