Why Did the Founding Fathers Choose a Republic?
Why Did the Founding Fathers Establish a Republic and not a Democracy?
America’s founding fathers intended the U.S. to be a Republic (elected officials vote on laws), rather than a Direct Democracy (everyone votes on laws).
More specifically, the founders intended the U.S. to be a “mixed-republic” comprised of a union of states (federalism), each with a republican government, ruled by elected officials and laws, bound by federal and state Constitutions, in which democratic and liberal principles were ensured. Indeed, they succeeded, and today the United States is a Constitutional Federal Republic; with a strong democratic tradition.
TIP: See also, “what is a Republic?“, “Plato’s Republic“, and the U.S. party names explained.
The Founders, Democracy, and the Republic
The Constitution specifically creates a Federal Republic, a federation of republican states and a central federal republican government. Meanwhile the focus on states’ rights, a separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial, and the liberal-minded the Bill of Rights (which amends the Constitution) helps to ensure “strong Democratic values.” Thus, “the U.S. is a Constitutional Federal Republic; with strong Democratic values” by design.
The Founders did not do this because they thought a “Representative” Republic (AKA Representative Democracy) was perfect, or because they all agreed a strong federal government was better than a looser Confederation of states (see all of American history and the Articles of Confederation, to States’ Rights, to the Confederates). They did it because they wanted to avoid the pitfalls of past governments, including factions, special interests, oligarchs, despots, monarchy, weak central government, and specifically mob rule. Mob rule, also called Tyranny of the Majority, is what happens when a “pure” Democracy devolves into Anarchy, and thus there is no law or laws are not followed.
Although no two founders agreed fully, and although they knew all styles of governments had drawbacks, they came to a consensus that the best way to avoid the pitfalls was to put the creation of laws and the electing of Presidents (and at the time Senators) in the hands of elected and appointed officials, rather than directly in the hands of the public (see how voting works). Thus, while the government is “by the people, of the people, and for the people”, it is not a direct democracy classically speaking.
These intentions can be verified a number of ways, including by: the Constitution which creates a Republic with an electoral college, the Federalist papers which make a case for the Insufficiency of the Confederation to Preserve the Union, a Day-by-Day Summary of the Convention, other written documents from the founders like Jefferson’s letters, the founder’s philosophical influences like Locke or even Aristotle (who was one of the first to warn of mob rule), the debates surrounding past governments, and the condition of America post-Treaty of Paris (1983) which demanded action.
At the time of the Constitution’s drafting in 1789, the U.S.’s currency was a bit of a joke (see Continental currency) and states were off making deals with other countries. This is why the Second Continental Congress called a meeting to discuss replacing the Articles of Confederation with a better document, to create a “more perfect Union”.
Without getting to deep into Locke’s rights or Montesquieu’s laws and liberties like Madison and Jefferson did, we can simply say, you need some form of stable government to protect democracy, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; thus “a mixed-Republic” (a mixed-government rooted in a Republic like we have).
The founders didn’t agree on much, but luckily they did end up agreeing on Jefferson’s Declaration and Madison’s Virginia plan and Bill of Rights; but only after much debate.
The final result (in terms of all the documents) is a compromise between the more right-leaning and left-leaning factions within the Federalist and Anti-Federalist factions.
For example, the anti-Federalist Thomas Jefferson wanted a purer democracy in-line with the spirit of the French revolution, while the Federalist Hamilton wanted a more formal power structure like England’s. Meanwhile, James Madison, the father of the Constitution and Bill of Rights themselves, fell somewhere in the middle. It was Madison who, likely inspired by Montesquieu’s description of Lycia, designed the mixed-confederate-republic with a separation of powers.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence. – Article. IV. Section. 4. guaranteeing every state a Republican form of Government.
ALL STATES, all powers, that have held and hold rule over men have been and are either republics or principalities. – Machiavelli, the father of political science.
THERE are three species of government; republican, monarchical, and despotic. In order to discover their nature, it is sufficient to recollect the common notion, which supposes three definitions, or rather three facts: “That a republican government is that in which the body or only a part of the people is possessed of the supreme power: monarchy, that in which a single person governs by fixed and established laws: a despotic government, that in which a single person directs every thing by his own will and caprice.” – Montesquieu, Revolutionary America’s most cited author
TIP: See an essay on the form of government of America and what it means to be a “Constitutional Federal Representative Republic; with a strong democratic tradition“. It is too complex to fully describe here.
Why Socrates Hated Democracy. The Tyranny of the majority has been a fear of political thinkers since Plato’s Socrates famously criticized Athen’s own “Athenian democracy” in Plato’s Republic. Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, and almost every political philosopher whose name an average person can recall was a Republican who favored a Republic to direct democracy. The general idea is that the fate of the city-state (or today the nation-state) is best entrusted to those who have prepared for the duty (both in terms of who should rule and how should vote). You’ll be hard-pressed to find a champion of pure democracy in history, even those with a strong democratic streak like Jefferson or Rousseau valued the merits of Republicanism. See an article on Republicanism in history.
TIP: Arguments for the Republic can be found in the Federalist #10 (Madison), #47 and #51 (Madison, separation of powers) and #68 (Hamilton, the electoral college). Even a brief skim of documents like Jefferson’s letters and the Federalist Papers is quick to illustrate “a love of the republic” as Montesquieu would say.
TIP: To be clear, not only is the federal government a Republic, but the Constitution guarantees each state in the Union a republican form of government (remember we are a federation of republican states with a central republican government, so there is more than one layer to consider). State legislatures almost all consist of a higher and lower house (a bicameral legislature like the federal house and senate) where elected officials make laws. However, people do vote directly for some state-based laws, initiatives and referendums (see how voting works in the United States); the people can also bring to the table and vote on recalls. Given the complexity of America in practice today, it is very appropriate to refer to it as a “mixed-government” or “mixed-republic”.
TIP: America isn’t just “a Republic,” it is a Constitutional Federal Republic with a Democratic spirit. Democratic ideals led to the rejection of a Constitutional Monarchy or a more restrictive Republic. This said, America isn’t the first free trading Republic, its actually a lot like Britain, but it has no King/Queen or Parliament and instead has a President and Congress.
Conflict & Compromise: The Constitutional Convention
TIP: See Forms of Government, The history of left and right Madison Drafted the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the founding fathers and their classically liberal principles and History of the Political Parties.
FACT: The name “the United States” likely comes from CHAP. III.: Other Requisites in a confederate Republic of Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws where he (discussing past confederations of republican states like Lycia) says, “It is difficult for the united states to be all of equal power and extent….Were I to give a model of an excellent confederate republic, I should pitch upon that of Lycia.” In this work Montesquieu coins many of the concepts Madison and the other founders would pick up on and bake into our Constitution. Importantly this includes the concept of a large confederation of republics with a central government and a separation of powers; a United federation of Republican States [and Commonwealths].
Magna Carta, English Bill of Rights, and American Government. (Tom Richey). America is founded on the principles of liberalism (the political philosophy of liberty, i.e. life, liberty, the ownership of property, separation of powers, etc.) This video helps explain where these ideas come from.
Philosophical and Historical Justification for Creating a Republic
America’s founding fathers had studied history from Athenian Democracy, to the Roman Republic before and after Caesar, to the Maritime republics of the Middle Ages (including the successful mixed-government of the Republic of Venice), and they had seen the pitfalls of the other types of governments, which had been known since the Greeks philosophers.
In Plato’s Republic, Plato discussed how “the Republic” is the only practical and stable form of government that promotes Democracy. Hume called for a mixed government, Rousseau did too, Machiavelli a Republic (pointing to Venice specifically over his Florentine), Montesquieu a mixed republic ruled by law, even Burke supported a Republic. Etc. Madison was well read, as were other Virginians (like Virginia’s George Mason and Gouverneur Morris “the Penman of the Constitution”).
This is to say, the founders looked great city-states like Athens, Rome, Sparta, Alexandria, and Egypt and generally took the ideas of other great thinkers from the Greeks throughout the European enlightenment and applied them when moving from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution. (See political philosophers who influenced the founding fathers).
Madison, pulled ideas straight out of political philosophy, including Montesquieu’s separation of powers when drafting the Constitution and Bill of Rights. With the Bill of Rights specifically being, by no stretch of the imagination, a list of classical liberal principles modeled on George Mason’s Virginia Declaration of Rights. Jefferson, who was 33 at the time the Declaration is created, likewise, paraphrases Locke in the Declaration of Independence. Meanwhile, Thomas Paine draws heavily on existing political philosophy while creating his own new philosophies.
The founders did not all agree with each theoretical or practical provision regarding the structure and principles of the new government (and none is more telling than the three fifths compromise). They discussed the issues, compromised, and came to a consensus. They created a government that would allow the elites and aristocrats to step in as needed in Hamiltonian, pro-British, Roman style, while embracing a free-market democratic process that was partly influenced by the Athenians (Jeffersonian style), and partly influenced by the new economic philosopher Adam Smith (Benjamin Franklin style).
Consensus is clearly expressed by historical records and documents like The Federalist papers (for example No. 10), and confirmed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
“Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments.” – Alexander Hamilton (Implying that utilizing a centered mix of government styles, rooted in law, was the only way to ensure Liberty).
Republic vs. Democracy – What Is The Real Form of the U.S. Government. TIP: This is an excellent video and hits the nail on the head in some ways. However, the video is, at times, bias by omission, and its take on “left and right”, especially in modern context, is a little oversimplified and is misleading. This can be explained by understanding the video is done by The John Birch Society, a right-leaning think tank. See our take on Left versus Right to get an alternative view.
“In adopting a republican form of government, I not only took it as man does his wife, for better, for worse, but what few men do with their wives, I took it knowing all its bad qualities.” – 1803 GOUVERNEUR MORRIS
TIP: In reality, Governments don’t use “pure” systems, this is especially true if we consider large groups and subsystems. Different groups work well with different systems. A “pure” anything is only possible with a type of Monarchy (typically an Oligarchy) that carefully structures a society. The principles of Democracy and even Republics are too messy to result in “pure” anything. The trick to a well-structured society is balancing a mixed system of checks and balances, while warding off special interests and demagogues, which is easier said than done.
TIP: When we say “basic political systems” we are using the time-honored systems of Plato (Republic) and Aristotle (Politics), and applying them to today. See Aristotle’s political theory, see Plato’s Republic.
TIP: According to Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws, the “spring” of a Democracy is a love of equality and the “spring” of a Republic is moderation and modesty (a necessary virtue to ensure a love of country despite the inherent inequality found in this form). Thus, a Democratic Republic (a mixed government that is both Republican and Democratic) must uphold the virtues of both a Democracy and Republic. Thus, in the United States virtue would be understood (not like this), but as a love of country, equality, moderation, and modesty as encapsulated by law and tradition (paraphrasing). This is done by: 1. putting the common good before special interest, 2. creating law based on the common good, 3. putting the law before all else, 4. ensuring this with checks and balances between powers using the principles of mixed governments in the Republic. I’d also argue that the “spring” of monarchies applies, which is honor. See the Spirit of the Laws, Book 3. CHAP. III.: Of the Principle of Democracy, CHAP. IV.: Of the Principle of Aristocracy, and CHAP. V.: Of Education in a republican Government (he in this chapter and later chapters presents a very robust argument, of which many of our founders would have been familiar).
Republics Versus Oligarchies
To understand political science or political theory one has to understand the types of governments: monarchy (ruled by one), oligarchy (ruled by a few), republic (ruled by elected officials and governed by law), and democracy (ruled by many).
When all is said and done, there are two basic choices for a functioning Government: 1. Republic 2. Oligarchy (both types of aristocracies; see forms of government).
- Oligarchy means a small group of powerful people, which controls the nation.
- Republic means elected officials control the nation.
In simple terms: if we don’t want an Oligarchy (rule of special interests), we must protect the Republic (the rule of law). Some argue America has been taken over by the Oligarchs at times, and generally, the party system can be seen as a consistent push for, or against, this. You can see how this might look on the political left-right spectrum of basic governments below.
A left-right paradigm using a four point graph to show how common government types relate to left and right in terms of “who has the authority” and “who says so?”
Why Don’t We Choose Something Other Than a Republic?
Speaking in simple terms, other government systems, including a pure Direct Democracy and Anarchy, tend to collapse into Oligarchy as they are unstable. Monarchy almost always becomes an Oligarchy as a single person can’t rule a nation alone. All other Government types are subtypes of these choices.
We can have a hybrid Republic as we do in the US, where communes like grassroots groups, oligarchies like corporations, and individuals all exist within the rule of law. Or, we can not.
A hybrid Direct Democracy that functions similarly to a Republic in many respects, but uses Direct Democracy for voting, worked well for Athens, one of the great city-states and a model for governments. For a balanced look at this see the Athenian Constitution by Libertarian philosopher Roderick T. Long.
Also, most modern civilized governments are mixed-governments. This means they draw from all the political systems. Many favor a Republic, while utilizing the many subtypes of Democracy within the structure of law. If you watch the above video and read this, you can see how nuance is used to sow confusion.
Interest Groups: Crash Course Government and Politics #42.
TIP: Do not confuse “Republic” with the modern political party “Republicans.” The only things they have in common, aside a few ideals, is nomenclature. It is the same for Democrats and “Democracy.” Neither current political party is representative of a pure Republic, nor a pure Democracy. Both are further left or right on specific issues. Typically Democrats tend to espouse leftist ideology on social issues and are right-leaning on taxation. Republicans are generally the opposite. In this, we refer to the modern accepted usage of left and right. See the history of the political parties in the US for more information.
FACT: Article IV of the United States Constitution actually “guarantee[s] to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government”, it may guarantee Republicanism, but it doesn’t define a religion or an economic system. The underlying message is liberty by the rule of law and the mixing of the best aspects of political systems. This is well summed up by the Declaration of Independence.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – The Declaration of Independence
- CIA World Factbook
- Constitution of the United States
- Bill of Rights
- The Federalist Papers : No. 10
"Why Did the Founding Fathers Choose a Republic?" is tagged with: Alexander Hamilton, American Politics, Benjamin Franklin, Fathers or Mothers of a Field, George Washington, James Madison, Liberty, Thomas Jefferson, Types of Governments, United States of America
This subject should be talked about more often. The citizens of every country need to be aware of how their government functions. Only then can a nation protects the values, responsibilities, and control of their leaders.
This article touches on the relationship between government and citizens. The basic principle is maintaining a strong government to represent the population, but never to be so powerful as to restrict their freedoms. This is the tipping point. When too much power is taken or given to such a small percentage of the population, it becomes an Oligarchy regardless of all the safeguards.
America’s current condition in politics make obvious this problem. ‘Professional Politics’ is a reasonable term to consider. Our government is controlled by these professionals. There are advantages in this; however, there are many dangers as well.
When politicians become powerful, they may take a more personal position on issues instead of representing the values of constituents. Behind door politics became rampant. Too often, they believe the people are not intelligent enough to know what is best for them. All the while working to enhance and further their career. The alarm bell should have been ringing as two families have dominated the bid for the White House. Yes, it has been happening since the beginning. The concern is how it resembles the line of accession to the throne. It’s like the CEO selecting his son to take over.
When looking at our current political state in this context, it looks a lot less than a Democracy and more like the Old Roman Republic.
This article is incorrect and needs to be corrected. And this is the problem were running in to today with people like Thomas DeMichele writing pieces like this that are twisting the constitution and bill of rights. He says, “The Constitution specifically creates a Federal Republic, a federation of republican states and a central federal republican government. Meanwhile the focus on states’ rights, a separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial, and the liberal-minded the Bill of Rights (which amends the Constitution) HELP TO ENSURE “STRONG DEMOCRATIC VALUES.” Thus, “the U.S. is a Constitutional Federal Republic; WITH STRONG DEMOCRATIC VALUES” BY DESIGN. Everything about this last statement, the part I capitalized is 100% WRONG! Democratic values go against everything the Bill Of Rights represent. So, once again here we see a guy that is trying to twist the constitution and make it seem like our forefathers were for a democratic society when that was the furthest from there intentions. Hey, Thomas DeMichele, stop spreading BS about our founding documents. Cause all your doing is being a F’ing piece of Shh liar. So, F off!
This statement is not only accurate, but beautiful; “The Constitution specifically creates a Federal Republic, a federation of republican states and a central federal republican government. Meanwhile the focus on states’ rights, a separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial, and the liberal-minded the Bill of Rights (which amends the Constitution) HELP TO ENSURE “STRONG DEMOCRATIC VALUES.”
To your insult, I say, “Lay off the Fox News and re-read Plato’s Republic, Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution.”
To your legitimate concerns, I would point out that you are misunderstanding my position.
The founders created a Republic rather than a pure Democracy on purpose and after careful consideration because they were well aware of the real and therotical dangers of a pure democracy. On this point we agree, but I say as much in the article.
To me it feels like you are zeroed in and zoned in on this idea that pure democracy doesn’t work, so if I mention democracy as a concept you get triggered, but because you don’t like the party Democratic. This is an absurd position.
We have a mixed-Republic, with many Democratic elements, and we are proud of them as a nation. If you aren’t proud of our nation, I don’t feel like I should have to bend over backwards to placate you.
I won’t accuse you of lying, as I don’t feel that you are lying. I feel that you are on a slightly misinformed tangent that has brought you to my blog hurling slightly inappropriate insults at me for understanding the nature and spirit of our government in a way that you do not. I suggest you put the righteousness aside and listen closer to what I have to say.
We are a Republic with the rule of law. That is certain. We have elected officials who write the laws, and aside from state-based initiatives this is the way it is. However, we also have a number of democratic elements baked in, especially at the state level. Democratic elements and values, a Democratic spirit, by design and in-practice. I am not wrong to note this, and we can find great Americans noting this in history.
The fact that the Constitution is the amended constitution, and thus is the Bill of Rights, allows me to point to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to make my claims.
With both those documents considered right off the bat in the Constitution a representative Republic is created, this is opposed to a Monarchy or top down only government, this is Democratic. The House is meant to give the people more of a voice, because it is closer to the state and thus the individual level. The fact that they are granted powers is Democratic. The amendments that offer individual rights is liberal if nothing else and the one that calls for the direct election of Senators is Democratic.
The Constitution doesn’t say the King shall appoint a house of Lords to do his bidding and watch over his kingdom, so its not a Monarchical Republic. It creates representatives from states broken into different branches and houses in an effort to represent the people with an elected President at the helm, thus it is a Presidential Representative Federal Republic with Democratic elements (and as you can see in the Bill of Rights and in terms of states’ rights, Democratic Values).
Sure, it used to be a more aristocratic Republic, but the old democrats specifically, and to some extent our forefathers of different eras, did a lot to change this (thank the Democrats of the 1800s for the popular vote and various states’ rights positions, and thank the Democrats of the 1900s for other democratic features like the popular vote of Senators).
In short, The United States is in theory and even more-so today in practice, a Republican Government and each state is a Republican Government, but it is a Democratically minded Republican government (especially at the state level where so many positions are subject to direct popular vote and term limits). This is what I mean, what I say, and how it is. You are being unnecessarily defensive and personally insulting… I assume because you have watched too much right wing media and seek to make a point that is rooted not in fact but in emotion and propaganda. When I say you should read up on the philosophy of governments an re-read the Constitution with that in mind, I mean it in a very sincere way
[When looking at our current political state in this context, it looks a lot less than a Democracy and more like the Old Roman Republic.]
Thats a problem. For countries with 82% poverty, democratic terminology is unacceptable and for elite countries with 82% as well.
We have a mixed-Republic, with many Democratic elements, and we are proud of them as a nation. If you aren’t proud of our nation, I don’t feel like I should have to bend over backwards to placate you.
The above affirmed is true also
Boy, you Liberals just can’t help yourselves can you?? No wonder it’s more than 90% of Americans who fall for this stupid belief that we’re a Democracy!
But, there are those of us who still now the real truth! The reasons WHY the forefathers very carefully crafted the Constitutional Republic they did! And in every single case of their intent, its quite obvious they avoided the principles of “Democracy”!
The reason why you Socialists want to pervert history and lie to modern Americans is so you can weave in your Socialist beliefs and eventually turn this country into a Socialist society!
It’s pathetic and a shame that we can’t view history and become wiser! Rome was taken down by those too stupid to realize their supposed intelligence wasn’t intelligence at all. yet, here we stand on a precipice ready to throw ourselves over yet another cliff because of those who without true common sense believe themselves to be more intellectually prowess to their neighbors and therefore conjure up a need and a justification to LIE to their fellow Americans as they weave their toxic beliefs into the fabric of our great nation’s powerful history!
Now, we’re left to the cancerous belief that we’re a Democracy, when nothing could be more further from the truth!
In the most polite way possible, “what?!”
This page clearly explains 1. why the founders chose a Republic (to prevent the short comings of pure democracies and pure monarchies for example; both of which can become tyrannical) and 2. how a representative and federal Republic like ours is a type of representative democracy rooted in republicanism (a representative republic) meant to have democracy at the state level and aristocracy toward the Federal to create a mixed-system that is both democratic and republican.
Also, although they didn’t use the terms at the time, in terms of taxation and the common welfare, it is socialist… and in terms of the capitalist sub-system, private property, and the bill of rights, it is very liberal.
You say that people thinking we are democracy will diminish us, but I disagree. People should be as proud of our democratic and liberal values as they are of our republican values. I would instead say it is polarizing tribalism and hot heads are a bigger issue (be we talk about the Civil War or World Wars, we can find polarized tribes ready to war).
If I look to diminishing forces in nations I see authoritarians born out of populist rage as the issue, not liberal democrats or true republicans with a respect for the democratic process.
Plus, when it comes to direct voting on state level positions and policies (in some states)… that is direct democracy is the purest sense. So on some levels we really are a democracy.
Thomas DeMichele: I liked your article.
Thank you for the compliment.
America’s long been an oligarchy that stems from both democratic and republican parties.
This cancer has grow so diseased that some politi-criminals elects are preaching socialism, while knowing full well that it goes against the constitution.
Yet, they sit within our government, under an oath that they cannot and will not keep.
Even some Americans have begun sucking off socialism slavery, all because modern society lacks the resolve to remove the political parasites that have infected our constitutional government.
Governments are a reflection of society. Ours has long reflected stupidity and greed.
The ill state of our government, is our fault because we keep electing wealthy garbage, or wealthy funded garbage into our governing system.
All because we like the smell of the demagogue filled shit sandwich they are feeding us.
When stupidity becomes the majority, democracy becomes the spearhead of stupidities tyranny allowing corruption to control and prosper at the expense of that stupidity.
The immoral wealthy, are responsible for bringing ruin to societies, cities, and countries throughout human history.
This is a lesson we had better learn because America is already speeding down the road to ruin.
I read your article and like it very much. However, I see the 17th Amendment directly electing senators as a push towards a more direct democracy. The house is for the people and the senate was for the states, ie their legislatures. Today both chambers are for the people and I consider that a problem because now the states their legislatures voices have been removed from our federal government. Prior to the 17th Amendment states had a voice in our federal government to ensure the states had a say and that equal voice.
Perhaps I am wrong in this thinking but as I have thought on this at great length and read many of the philosophers that our founders did I believe this was their true intent.
From what I’ve read some founders would have likely preferred that style in the first place, while the majority agreed on the original system. The move toward direct democracy for sure has pros and cons worth discussing. Thanks for the comment.
Having a bill of rights that protects everyone is better than democracy that is nothing more than mob rule. That way everyone is represented equally even if voting is direct. Why then can we not have a direct democracy that is also ruled by law? We could rule by petition and maintain a bill of rights that would protect the minority. Let the people vote directly with a bill of rights to protect the minority against abuse by the majority. Make sure there is no abusive powers like we have with the income tax or what we have with unnecessary military power. The private sector should be left alone unless there is a need to protect against force or fraud. Using this logic and reason will be the kind of social evolution that will save us all.
Dependent on a minority of the population to hold national power, Republicans such as Senator Mike Lee of Utah have taken to reminding the public that “we’re not a democracy.” It is quaint that so many Republicans, embracing a president who routinely tramples constitutional norms, have suddenly found their voice in pointing out that, formally, the country is a republic. There is some truth to this insistence. But it is mostly disingenuous. The Constitution was meant to foster a complex form of majority rule, not enable minority rule.