Is The United Statesa Democracy

''"We pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands"--not to the democracy for which it stands.''

Apparently Americans ouside of the constitutional convention shared the impression that they were getting a quasi monarchy. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."

Perhaps the question should be interpreted as: "Is the United States a very representative republic?". The US is clearly, in law and in practice, a "republic". And it is "democratic" in the sense that its citizens are involved in the process of deciding the composition of their representation. It is not a strict "democracy", however, since it is the people's representatives who are the sovereign authority, not the people themselves.

Many welcomes to you, oh alien from Reverso-Earth. However, on this world, the USA is not democratic by even the loosest sense of the term. In particular, its citizens are not meaningfully involved in the process of deciding the composition of their representation.

I take it you agree that this alien has identified the crux of the matter. Whether the citizens of the US are meaningfully involved in the process is an open question, but we are not talking about a binary opposition of democratic/undemocratic or democracy/republic, are we?

Oh, it's not an open question at all. The USA is not democratic by the meaningless standard that its citizens are involved in the election process. So it certainly can't be democratic by any meaningful standard such as that popular will decides social policy, that everyone has an equal say in social policy, that everyone participates equally in the process of social policymaking, et cetera.

Oh well, if it's not an open question, it's not worth-while discussing it. It would appear, though, that your lexicography is as faulty as your logic.

It's frequently alledged by critics of the US (internal and external) that it's not a democracy. Bases for this accusation include:

It's not alleged, the US is a representative republic, and always has been. Read your history, read Hamilton, the federalist papers, we are a republic!

The question of the meaning of "democracy" seems to have been raised here, so the same might be asked about "republic": in the same sense now as 200 years ago?

The "democracy" vs "republic" debate; it's well-known that the founders were suspicious of direct democracy and designed the US government (federal) to have various buffers against the popular will. Examples include the Electoral College (though it has utterly failed in its purpose); a bicameral legislature whose upper house (the Senate) has staggered 6-year terms of service; an independent and unelected judiciary, etc.
- How relevant this issue is today is questionable. No nation I can think of is a "direct" democracy (though some might make it a bit easier for an outraged populace to impose its will and effect change). (Counter-example: ConfederationHelvetica? is a mostly direct democracy.)
- Many state governments in the US have more "direct democracy" features--the initiative and referendum; the power to recall elected officials (to which Arnold Schwarzanegger owes his current job); election of judges, etc. (Interesting how those are invariably the progressive, left-wing states.)
The "republocrat" charge--the belief that the two main political parties are more alike than different; and effectively the same.
Charges that the media is sufficiently corrupt and/or monolithic that informed public debate isn't possible.
Charges that US citizens are "sheep" or otherwise uninformed about the issues.

The fact that shows best that the USA are not very democratic, is IMO that the "rich percent" of the population votes the president. They pay for the promotion with donations - a candidate that has no support from the rich people is hopelessly lost. With no money for advertising and so on, the candidate will not be able to reach the people. With this power the rich peoply also directly affect the politics - so that they and their companies benefit. You can clearly see all that on the current president: Bush lowered the taxes for share-holders (of course the already rich benefit most). That's why the wall street supports Bush with a record-braking amount of donations this year.

Bribocracy [I was surprised to find that Bribocracy is an actual term that can be googled.]

It would be interesting over here (U.K. where we now have an election) if this page was updated.