It is better off a Constitutional Republic like our founding fathers in the beginning of this country. It was made so people could have power over
themselves and so everyone could have equal rights. I also support a Republic because everyone, even the minority benefits, unlike democracy which could lead to to socialism and communism. A Constitutional Republic says everyone can own private property and has an equal chance to grow and prosper and to build and have their own business. They could also have their choice of health care not Obama's one health care plan. I also believe in pro life, and am against abortion, I don't think woman should have a choice to kill a living being growing inside of them and I hate the idea of gay marriage and I support traditional marriage between a man and a woman. I think the country should have a strong military and enough weapons available just in case another war starts and to protect it's citizens. I will always support the second amendment also and will never be against it, I have the right to bare arms and will do so to protect myself and others. This is why I think the US is better a Constitutional Republic than a Democratic Republic or a Representative Democracy.
A republic limits the power of both the people and the government. Give the people the power, they will ruin themselves with their idea of complete control over their selves. They can give the power to who they want. And a controlling government is another horrible idea as well because then there is no stopping them from doing the heck they want with land, money, and human lives. Because a republic balances the power of both sides, there is the control the government needs to stabilize the court system and the compulsiveness of the people and the people are given the power to do what they think is the best for the future of the country while limiting the power of the government.
It gets annoying when people say the U.S is just a "democracy", when in reality, we are a constitutional federal republic. A republic has a set of fundamental rules that cannot be broken while operating with democratic-like powers that are more-or-less balanced. A democracy however, is an all out majority rules system, which gets substantially more dangerous as the population grows because minorities get smaller and weaker.
The US has presidents and not monarchs because kings and queens like King George III had too much power over the original 13 colonies. A republic has many advantages. The US is an republic country so let's focus on that. In the US, the government is controlled by the checks and balances. So each branch of government is not overpowered. The US also has an president as head of state because in democracies, like the UK, has a monarch. Monarchs have lots of power over the democracy their in. If we go back to king George III, he had too much power over the colonies. This argument shows that republic leaders have their power balanced. In conclusion, I think that Republics ARE better than a democracy.
Some people say this when Australia has thought about becoming a republic it is a bad idea because we wont be a part of the commonwealth anymore, although republics can still compete in the commonwealth games according to this website - https://independentaustralia.net/australia/australia-display/an-australian-republic-and-the-commonwealth-the-truth,3505. The queen has also said she wants Australia to be a republic as well because it hurts her joints when she has to fly here.
In a democracy, anything can happen. Hitler was elected to become the President of Germany through the Wiemar Republic (Name of Germany as a democracy). He literally told everyone that he was going to kill tons of Jews and get "labensraum" (word for living-room in German) for Arions. Through a democracy Hitler was able to create a dictatorship, and take away freedom of speech, and many other basic human rights. A republic includes having a charter, the bill of rights, which includes basic rights that are "inalienable", not able to be taken away from, the people.
Our founding Fathers hated the fact of a Democracy they wanted a Republic, because under the rule of England they were not a loud individual rights, or privacy. The difference between a Republic and Democracy in the old west one lone rider is being chased by group of riders they vote 35 to 1to hang him, Democracy follows the majority rule, and does not follow the Constitution. Well for a Republic they vote 35 to 1, but then the sheriff arrives, and says "You can't hang him the Constitution gives him his rights to a fair trial. A Republic is not subject to Majority rule, but to the law that is a Republic now consider yourself the lone rider in a Democracy your @$$ is grass, but in a Republic you get a fair trial, and your free.
You sit back, and watch Obama say "My fellow Americans" although he was Kenyan, and his mom was an extremist, and his father a communist, but heck you democrats are in love with this guy. But he has destroyed everything, plus some of the democrats that actually think didn't even like him a least 33% hated him and agreed with the republicans, but i'm off track so let start from the top. For years this countries Republic has been destroyed our founding fathers would be ashamed of what this country is know, for years people think know that a democracy is better wrong it has only focused on the majority of the people not one single person. True that the people of the Colonies wanted freedom, but it was only because they experienced the same thing, because a lot of people wanted freedom at least 89.9% did. So as our fathers fought for all our freedom it was a controversy what it should be A REPUBLIC, or A DEMOCRACY. They chose a Constitutional Republic. So all you democrats, you do realize you chose socialism, which is close to collectivism, and communism, so learn this every time you side with that you, crap on your country, you crap on your, and you crap on your "Founding Fathers"
Our Founding Fathers, if they were here would be ashamed of what this country has become they wanted every single person to be free not the majority, plus when the Constitution was signed they were arguing, but at the end a women said to Franklin "What if a republic under a small government, and a Constitution". Plus why does the majority doesn't everyone's decision matter not in a democracy they care about the majority, not the single person. " The needs of the many out way the needs of the few" that's a socialists idea, and socialism, is just as bad as Collect ism, and Communism. So that's what are father's were afraid of, and even tried to shackle the government so it won't brake away, but even shackles can be broke so that's why "A REPUBLIC IS BETTER!!!!!", but heck even if it is it's own people have their heads up their butt, and are in love with democrats and Barack Obama. That man's bark is bigger than his bite so learn from this a "REPUBLIC IS BETTER!!' if you don't want that get out of our country because you Democrats have crapped on the country, it's freedom, it's republic, it's Constitution, and it's fathers.
As stated in by the founding fathers of the U.S, the U.S is a republic and that the citizens of the United States will have certain rights that cannot be infringed. In a democracy, the government and the majority, with "popular opinion," can take away rights and, thus, cause anarchy.
R68yfujhvtiyfjhvkgtigyvj hcg hjdfksahjkdfs haajfk dhjfh h h h hh h h h hhfjjh jh jh j h j hjh jhj hjhj hjh jhjh hjh jh jh jhh h h h hh h h h h h hh hh h h hh h h h h h h h hh h hh h i hate you all
A republic(ex.USA) has a way of restricting stuff to make a safe gov..
But a democracy(UK or Canada) has a way to let all people vote and even though it could get messy it could easily be reformed by the people. USA and Canada are both devoloped,great countries and are simillar.There both free.But USA is a republic and Canada is a democracy.Does that mean Canada is worse!
Some of the most developed countries in the world are democracies. For example, Switzerland is a direct democracy in which the public vote on every issue. A republic might have the advantage of being faster, but a democracy allows everyone the same rights to make decisions of their country. This allows the needs and wants of the people to be heard. In a republic the voice of people can be ignored, leading to protests and violence, but in democracies, is a referendum has gotten 50'000 signatures in 100, it goes to parliament and the public vote to decide if the referendum should become law. Republics can also have the problem of potential presidents misleading or manipulative to the public. In addition, the power of a country in one persons hand can be dangerous. Therefore, a democracy is a peaceful way for a country to thrive and please its people.
Although both are governments by the people, a democracy attempts to base how it governs on the wishes of all the people who are governed by it. The way in which government leaders and officials are elected and the power that is given to them upon election should be decided by everyone. The weight of power is in decision making which should be given to everyone because it affects everyone.
While both forms of government have their strengths, either in it's purest form leads to great (though different) problems. In a pure democracy, in addition to the problems mentioned by others here, there is also greater cost and less efficiency than a republic, or any other form of government for that matter. On the other side, in a pure republic, once a person is elected, they have the right to say and do whatever they decide to, and can claim to act in behalf of the electorate. Thus, in a large group, republics tend to be stronger, but at a much smaller scale, where economies of scale don't drive the inefficiencies through the roof, democracy actually works better, allowing each individual the opportunity to have an equal voice, unfiltered by the representative.