It seems like many times when I express a political opinion, especially if it leans toward expanding voting rights, promoting equality, or strengthening democratic participation, someone inevitably shows up to remind me that "the United States is a republic, not a democracy." It’s intended to shut down conversation, not to open it. But it’s also historically and politically misleading, and frankly, intellectually lazy.
Let’s clear something up. The United States is both a republic and a democracy. These aren’t opposing terms. A republic is a system of government where the country is considered a "public matter" (from the Latin res publica), and where the head of state is not a monarch. A democracy, on the other hand, is a form of government where power ultimately resides with the people, typically exercised through elected representatives. When you put those together, you get what we have. A representative democracy within a constitutional republic.
So why do some folks insist on the distinction? Well it’s usually a rhetorical trick used to delegitimize democratic norms they don’t like. Expanding access to voting? "Mob rule." Protecting the principle of one person, one vote? "We’re a republic!"
This misuse has deep roots in American political life. It stems, in part, from fears of majority rule running roughshod over minority rights. That’s a concern that was valid in the context of designing checks and balances but has since been weaponized to excuse undemocratic behavior. Consider the modern push for extreme gerrymandering. When state legislatures carve up districts to dilute the voting power of specific communities, that’s not a defense of republicanism but an attack on democratic principles.
Or take the Senate. Wyoming’s roughly 580,000 residents get the same number of senators as California’s 39 million. That’s constitutional, but it creates a massive imbalance in representation. And some would argue that because the Constitution says so, it’s therefore just. But legality is not the same as justice. The filibuster has also become a tool for a minority to block the will of the majority, and some defenders wrap themselves in the language of "republican government" to justify it.
Then of course, there’s the Supreme Court. A majority of justices were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote. The Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder gutted the Voting Rights Act, unleashing a wave of state laws that made it harder for marginalized communities to vote. Texas, Georgia, and Florida were quick to impose new ID laws, reduce voting hours, and restrict mail-in ballots. That’s not protecting a republic. That’s undermining democracy.
And of course there is the Electoral College. Twice in recent history we elected presidents who lost the popular vote. And those same presidents appointed justices who are now reshaping the law for generations. This is not theoretical. This is how we got to Dobbs v. Jackson, where the Court overturned nearly 50 years of precedent and eliminated the constitutional right to abortion. The majority of Americans did not support this decision, but the system we have, this supposedly better-than-democracy republic delivered it anyway.
In 2023, Ohio's legislature attempted to raise the threshold for passing citizen ballot initiatives from a simple majority to 60 percent, an obvious attempt to block a reproductive rights amendment. Voters overwhelmingly rejected it, but the effort itself reveals how "republican" arguments are often just shields for minority rule.
Also in 2023, Tennessee's House expelled two Black lawmakers for joining a protest against gun violence on the chamber floor. The move was unprecedented, punitive, and deeply anti-democratic. Though they were later reinstated by their constituents, the incident showed just how quickly power can be abused when dissent becomes inconvenient.
Across the country, states like Florida are banning books and rewriting curricula under the guise of "parental rights." But it’s not about parents or rights, it’s about control. Open access to knowledge is foundational to a functioning democracy. Erasing uncomfortable history or silencing marginalized voices isn’t protecting the republic. It’s authoritarianism in a fresh coat of paint.
Then there was the 2023 Supreme Court case Moore v. Harper, where the Court rejected a dangerous interpretation of the "independent state legislature" theory that would have let state legislatures override their own courts in federal elections. The fact that this theory even made it to the Court shows how far some are willing to push the republic-democracy divide to its breaking point.
And let’s talk voter suppression. In Georgia, Texas, and other states, aggressive voter purges and polling place closures have disproportionately affected minority communities. These actions are often justified under the banner of "election integrity," but they serve one purpose: to reduce turnout and consolidate power.
When people assert that we're a republic, not a democracy, what they often mean is: that they prefer a system where their side can win even if they get fewer votes. That’s not a defense of liberty. That’s a preference for minority rule.
The Founders didn’t fear democracy in the abstract. They feared unbridled power, whether in the hands of a king or a mob. That’s why they created a system of checks and balances, not to thwart the will of the people, but to ensure that power is shared, contested, and accountable. James Madison wrote in Federalist 10 about the dangers of faction, but he also supported a large republic because it could better absorb and balance competing interests through representative government. The fact that Trump’s first actions when coming into power were to try and destroy those checks and balances is testimony to how anti-democratic his interests are.
The truth is our system only works when it respects both aspects of its identity: its republican structure and its democratic spirit. That means defending free and fair elections, protecting voting rights, and ensuring that those in power are answerable to the public. It means resisting the urge to twist constitutional language to justify anti-majority outcomes.
So the next time someone says, "We're a republic, not a democracy," ask them what they mean. Do they mean we shouldn’t have equal representation? That voting should be harder? That popular opinion doesn’t matter? Because that’s where that line of thinking leads.
A republic that abandons its democratic values becomes something else entirely. And we’re already seeing the signs with books banned, history rewritten, courts captured, and laws passed not to serve the people but to entrench power. That’s not the future I want. I want one where government really is of the people, by the people, and for the people. And yes, that means democracy.
Disclaimer: Jim Powers writes opinion columns. The views expressed in this editorial are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of Polk County Publishing or its affiliates. In the interest of transparency, I am politically Left Libertarian.
