<trying to avoid a rant>

I think the labels of Republican and Democrat over the decade has
lost their meaning.  Being a Republican has very little to do with
the form of government called a Republic, and being a Democrat
has little to do with the form of government called a Democracy.

Now, I think Republican means the party of big business and
Democrat is the closet socialist party.

The idea of Democracy is not to enforce the 'Will of the People', but
to provide 'Consent of the Governed'.  The difference between the
two might seem trivial, but what Tracy has posted is actually 
something I agree with <mind still reeling>.  Democracy eventually
turns into what might be called a 'Dictatorship of the Majority'.
there are a number of examples from Ancient Greece to the 
Jamestown settlement which you can research if you are vigorous
enough.  These show absurdities which result from Democratic
forms of Government which are not moderated by other factors.

This is why the founders set this country up as a mix of Representatives
(the foundation of a Republic) elected by vote of the people
(the foundation of a Democracy) sent to a limited central government.

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:51:38 +0200, Per Östberg <[log in to unmask]> 
wrote:

>I've heard this argument (or arguments like it) in american politics
>before. Is this for real? I mean is this something you say just to
>promote the Republican party (over the democrats), or do you really
>think that democracy is somewhat unimportant? That beeing a republic
>(or any other aspect of your constitution) is *more* important than
>beeing a democracy?
>
>/per
>
>2008/9/17 Brice Yokem <[log in to unmask]>:
>> That is why we are not supposed to be a democracy, but a republic.
>>
>
>* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *