Republicanism vs Federalism vs Unionism.

[peter]

Silly really but on consideration I'm not really sure what the distinguishing features of each of the above is.

A Republic seems to be subject to the over-riding requirement that the people form the ruling body - but does it also refer to a collection of 'states' as a federation does.

A Federation seems to be a collection of states [is each one a Nation in it's own right?] that falls under the leadership of a single leader - but surely a republic also has a single, albeit chosen or elected, figurehead. And is there a representative and elected government in a federation as there is in a republic.

And after all this what makes a Union different [and/or better] than either of the above. Are the states in the US still nation states in their own right, as say the countries of the EC are? And what amongst all of this is the EC, and what does it want to be?

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Technically, a "republic" is simply a form of government under which people vote for representatives who, in turn, vote on issues and/or laws in a legislative body. This is a more efficient form of democracy so that every issue doesn't have to be a referendum sent to the voters. Pure democracy works perfectly on a smaller scale but above a certain level logistical problems make referendum votes unwieldy. I wouldn't want to be in charge of trying to collect and count the votes that 100 million people cast.

A federation is, as you note, merely a collection of autonomous states ("states" in the general political sense); each state is responsible for its own laws and neighboring states may have different laws about the same thing. Federations can have layers: multiple independent cities exist under a county, multiple counties or precincts exist under a state, multiple states or provinces exist under a national government, etc.

The word "union" is simply a synonym for federation.

A lot of countries use the words "union" or "republic" in their name; this is merely a descriptive term and may not actually have anything to do with the form of government they employ. People's Republic of China? Yeah, right--I don't think so. Sure, the citizens can vote...as long as they vote for the Party.

Are the states in the US still nation states in their own right? Good question. As originally designed, the States were supposed to be the highest authority, with the Federal Government's primary role being "middle management" between States in addition to its other roles as centralized military command, agency through which we deal with other nations, etc. What has happened, though, is that over time people began to think of the Federal Government as the primary authority to whom the States should be subservient. As I noted, this is not how this country is supposed to be organized. It doesn't hurt anything for it to be this way, in and of itself, but the fact remains that we allowed the rules to change and now everyone just accepts it even though it shouldn't be this way.

I am pretty certain the EU wanted to be a loose federation with the members having primarily economic ties with everyone else. This does make sense, following one line of logic--the proximity of the nations and the ease of trade they had already meant that they may as well join as partners with a common currency to make everything more efficient.
Whether this logic can be extended to the entire world is anyone's guess. Many would argue--not incorrectly--that we have a global economy already and that moving everyone to a single currency would be a good thing. Which currency should be used? *shrug* That would probably take years to debate as people argue that their currency should be used. My advice to settle that debate would be to create a new currency that no one currently uses--why not the bottlecap?--but you would also have to initially set its value arbitrarily because if you set its value at, say, 1 cap = 1 yuan then you are simply replacing everyone else's currency with China's.

[JIkj fjds j]

I am pretty certain the EU wanted to be a loose federation with the members having primarily economic ties with everyone else. This does make sense, following one line of logic--the proximity of the nations and the ease of trade they had already meant that they may as well join as partners with a common currency to make everything more efficient.

It sounds like your describing, The Common Market. Which the United Kingdom joined back in the mid-seventies.
One reason for a strong economic EU is to challenge the dominant economies, like USA.
For example, there are more potential workers in the EU than there are in the United States. A high EU employment figure would be an economic force to be reckoned with.

[Fist and Faith]

Seems like a Tank topic to me. Is there a reason it belongs here? A plan to explore philosophical aspects of these things?

[JIkj fjds j]

Regarding my post, I would suppose the philosophy of a strong economic EU would help address the balance in the Global market. One step closer to a Global Union.

One outcome springs to mind in that the planet Mars may then not be as far away as it is today.

[Vraith]

What has happened, though, is that over time people began to think of the Federal Government as the primary authority to whom the States should be subservient. As I noted, this is not how this country is supposed to be organized.

It's not really just a changing of mind-set...or even primarily.
Our first organizing was so completely unworkable/dysfunctional---mostly because of the power-balance in favor of states---that the "nation" was on the verge of total collapse/dissolution.
So they rewrote it---and the way they rewrote it functionally/structurally/systematically and logically points towards greater Federal authority. They wrote that way on purpose because lack of that authority nearly killed the country in its cradle.
What they couldn't see was the extent/reach of it---because everything about the culture, tech, economy became integrated/interdependent in size/scale/scope that they had no reason or background to anticipate.
Something like the transcontinental railroad, all by itself, raises a host of issues that can only be satisfactorily/efficiently addressed at the Federal level.
And in many ways---maybe even most---this is a good thing.
For instance, without that move you might not have any rights, in effect, because though the Fed couldn't violate them, the States could if they felt like it.

Not that power-grabbing/usurping from the Fed doesn't exist...that would be a stupid claim.
But a lot more than many---especially the more extreme 'states rights'---peeps will acknowledge/believe is not unconstitutional, or the result of Federal grasping, it is the natural result of the way the beast was made.

Anyway---more topical---I have heard the argument made before that a real Republic [one that derives from the original definition/usage of the word], in addition to being representative instead of direct also provides something like the Bill of Rights...guaranteed, inviolate equalities/rights for individuals/minority groups/views and such that a pure democracy doesn't/can't have.

[peter]

(Put the post here Fist as it seemed to pertain to a question that would broadly fall into 'humanities' rather than current events. Should really have been in 'general discussion' I guess, but that can be 'a wilderness and a place of solitude' , but by all means shift it if it's out of place.)

Thanks Hashi - that was useful and informative. If I get it, the USA qualifies as a federal republic. How would the EU sit as a federation with states that have constitutional monarchies within its bounds.

V. - can you explain a little further why a pure democracy would not be able to encompass some of the areas you mention in respect of the original 'republic' definition; is it just because minority groups [for example are unlikely to score the votes in elections to get equitable representation?

[Vraith]

is it just because minority groups [for example are unlikely to score the votes in elections to get equitable representation?

The primary killing one is connected with that, yes. Because a pure and direct democracy means that 50%+1 can change anything at any time for any reason. No minority is ever protected from anything---except by the good intentions of the majority.
I'd say we [and every republic that more or less resembles the defined one that I'm aware of] aren't quite a "real" republic, either, but something of a hybrid.
Because it seems to me that a real Republic would have at least one fundamental, inviolate, unalterable right...but we, for instance, don't have that. It takes more than a simple majority of voters to take away rights---but it can be done simply by changing the Constitution. And that process is clearly and precisely defined.
That process is still where the States real power still resides, BTW. It is unwieldy...but it is undiluted.
Our process is also something less than a majority of voters, somewhat less democratic, and less individual-protecting than even democracy's 50+1.
IIR the numbers correctly, it is mathematically possible right now for the Constitution to be amended by a group that represents less than 15% of the population. [[extremely unlikely because some of those places are strongly left and some strongly right---but just the mathematical possibility is unpleasant. There are other mathematical quandaries that one gets bound up in if trying to make a pure/direct democracy. Of course such things exist in representation/republics as well. It is a mathematical truth that there exists no representative system that is fair to everyone...or even the smaller segment of eligible voters.]]

[peter]

Interesting to hear about some of the problems of having a written constitution, as opposed to the situation in the UK where we have no 'constitution' as such at all, which effectively allows government to execute jurisdiction in any area of life it chooses. The power of a constitution to limit the remit of government is one we have never enjoyed, even though the system does no doubt have it's failings.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Our process is also something less than a majority of voters, somewhat less democratic, and less individual-protecting than even democracy's 50+1.
IIR the numbers correctly, it is mathematically possible right now for the Constitution to be amended by a group that represents less than 15% of the population. [[extremely unlikely because some of those places are strongly left and some strongly right---but just the mathematical possibility is unpleasant.

The population of each State, according to the 2010 Census. Now sort the listing by "population in 2010 Census" from least to greatest then count the first 34, being two-thirds of the States, and you will arrive at the number 98, 447, 689; this is 31.88% of the population. You overestimated your numbers--if 80% of those people are eligible to vote then only 51% of them in each State representing a grand total of 31.88 * 0.8 * 0.51 = 13.01% of the general population can propose an Amendment to the Constitution.
If you take the least-populous 38 States, three-fourths of the States, then that population total is 124,595,677 or 40.36%. Applying the same logic would mean that 40.36 * 0.8 * 0.51) = 16.47% of the general population could ratify the proposed Amendment if the proposal and ratification were subjected to referendum voting, bypassing the Legislatures.

The logic is sound, though--hypothetically speaking, it is possible for a somewhat thin minority (less than 20%) of the population to alter the Constitution and do so constitutionally, thus making the change legal according to Article V. The only change which they couldn't make would be to deprive a State of having two Senators but everything else would be allowable, even repealing existing Amendments. Fascinating. Linear extrapolation of the growth rate from 2000 to 2010, account for only half since it is 2015, 16.5% of the general population....so a mere 53, 413, 750 people would rewrite the rules under which we all live.

The scenario is extremely unlikely--51% of the eligible voters in 34 States would have to get the measure onto a referendum ballot, pass it, then 51% of the eligible voters in 38 States would have to pass the referendum--but not impossible. The key point, though, is that this wouldn't "hijack" democracy--it would be perfectly democratic and would be completely constitutional.

[Vraith]

The scenario is extremely unlikely--51% of the eligible voters in 34 States would have to get the measure onto a referendum ballot, pass it, then 51% of the eligible voters in 38 States would have to pass the referendum--but not impossible. The key point, though, is that this wouldn't "hijack" democracy--it would be perfectly democratic and would be completely constitutional.

Yea, extremely unlikely, and constitutional, but not necessarily "democratic" [though still republican]...I don't think that a popular vote is necessary/required. It is an option, but not required---unless somewhere congress or some states have decided that that's the process they want. But I'm pretty sure the constitution has no popular vote requirement at all.