如果一个美国人跟你说“美国是一个共和国，不是一个民主国家”他们真正想表达的是什么？

原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻译：无熊猫氏 转载请注明出处

Murphy barrett
The truth.
The United States of America has never been a democracy. The Founding Fathers were mostly educated men, who knew history, civics, and philosophy. Consequently, they understood the distinction between a Democracy and a Republic.
In brief, a Democracy is Rule by Majority, while a Republic is Rule by Law.
What this means is that, in a Democracy, 51% of the population can, theoretically, vote to enslave, subjugate, abuse, or otherwise vote away the rights of the other 49%.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.
In a Republic, this is still possible, but far less likely. The law applies equally to all. Essentially, a Republic is designed to protect the minority from the majority. 51% cannot vote away the rights of the other 49%.
So when an American tells you that we are a Republic, not a Democracy, what we mean is that we live in a land ruled by law, where all are protected, not the tyranny of majority.

真相。
美国从来就不是民主国家。开国元勋们大多数都是受过良好教育的人，懂历史，公民学，哲学。因此，他们明白民主和共和之间的区别。
简单的说，民主制度就是多数派说了算，而共和制是法律说了算。
也就是说，在民主制度下，51%的人口理论上可以，投票来奴役，征服，虐待或者以其他的方式投票剥夺其他49%的人的权利。
民主制度就是两只狼和一只羊投票晚餐吃什么的制度。

在共和体制下，这仍然是有可能的，但是可能性小的多。法律对所有人平等。本质上，共和制被设计来保护少数派不受多数派的伤害。51%的人不能投票剥夺其他49%的人的权利。
所以当一个美国人告诉你，我们是一个共和国，而不是一个民主国家，我们的意思就是我们生活的土地是由法律说了算的，我们所有人都被保护，而不是多数派的暴政。

Edit:Based on some very good comments elaborating on my original answer, and comments with folks either misunderstanding what I’ve said or just flying off the handle, I want to point something out here.
My answer is must be taken in context. This is a very American answer, based on statements and arguments made by our Founding Fathers.
Further, to answer this question in the full depth necessary to gain a complete understanding of the subject, would require a dissertation level answer. This is just the very short version.

补充：基于一些非常好的解读我最初答复的评论，以及那些要么误解了我所说的话，要么直接情绪失控的评论，我想在这里指出一些问题。
我的回答必须结合上下文来考虑。这是一个十分美国式的回答，基于国父们所做的陈诉和论证。此外，要深入全面的回答这个问题，以获得对该主题的彻底了解，将需要一个毕业论文水平的答案。我这个只是一个非常简短的版本。



Tom hatcher
We are a constitutional republic..there is really no way we are a democratic republic. Constitution trumps representative by way of the process of changing the constitution…not to mention many of our founding fathers hated democracy.our constitution is the supreme law, if the federal representatives don''t like it, they need both houses, the president and 38 states to change it, a super majority at the federal and state level.

我们是一个宪政共和国...我们确实不可能是个民主共和国。在修改宪法的过程中，宪法胜过了代议制...更不要说我们很多的开国元勋都憎恨民主制。我们的宪法是最高法律，如果联邦代表们不喜欢它，他们需要参众两院，总统和38个州来修改它，这需要在联邦和州一级的超级多数。
（译注：美国宪法的修改分几种，一般第一步是三分之二的国会议员或者州议会通过法案提名，再发到各州，然后第二歩，如果四分之三的州，即50*3/4=37.5，38个州通过才可以修改宪法）

John copp
John, I concur with your assessment. We must also remember what Ben Franklin had to say on the matter.
After the Constitutional Convention had agreed on a new constitution and Franklin exited Independence Hall, a Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked him, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

我同意你的看法。我们也必须记住富兰克林关于这件事的表态。
在制宪会议通过了一部新的宪法之后，富兰克林走出了独立大厅，一位费城的鲍威尔女士问他，“好吧，医生，我们得到了什么，共和国还是君主国？”富兰克林毫不犹豫的回答说，“一个共和国，只要你们能保住它。”
（译注：富兰克林有很多头衔，但是不包括医生，没有经过专业医学训练，他就是喜欢别人喊他医生，他建立了美国第一家医院）

Daniel w.bryan
I use the America is a Republic statement all the time in answers relating to the Electoral College.
I do this for two reasons. The first is this very reason. The second is to point out that we are distinctly different than other counties, like Germany or the United Kingdom.

在回答选举人团的相关问题时，我总是使用美国是一个共和国这个表述。
我这么做有两个原因，一个就是你提到的这些。第二个是指出我们跟其他国家的明显区别，比如像德国或者英国。

Michael kamrath
Very plain and accurate. I should point out the Latin roots of the word republic. Res means “thing, matter”, and so res publica is the “public thing” or the thing that matters to all of us. This, I believe, was the reason for a constitution. I would say the rule of law is better than mob rule.

朴实又准确。我得指出共和国这个单词的拉丁词根。Res意思是“事情，重要”，所以res publica就是“公共的事情”或者对我们都重要的事情。我认为这是宪法诞生的原因。我得说法治比暴民统治要好。

Paul higgins
I wonder why the word Democracy is not mentioned in the United States Constitution, only says Republic. HMMMM

我想知道为什么民主这个词在美国宪法里提都没有提到过，只说了共和，嗯。

William lorimer
Sorry, but where do you get your definition of the word “democracy”? My Collins English Dictionary (Canadian Edition) defines “democracy” as “government by the people or their elected representatives”. Other dictionaries I’ve consulted have similar definitions. You in the United States elect a President and a Vice-President; you elect senators and congressmen/women. Those are your elected representatives. How do you conclude that this does not fit the generally accepted worldwide definition of “democracy”?
It’s like arguing that mozzarella isn’t cheese, because I’ve defined the word “cheese” to mean “cheddar”.

不好意思，但是你是从哪里得到的“民主”这个词的定义的？我的柯林斯英语词典（加拿大版本）定于“民主”为“人民或者当选代表选出来的政府”。其他我看过的词典也有类似的定于。你在美国选了一个总统和一个副总统，你选了参议员，选了众议员。那些都是你们选出来的代表。
你怎么推断这不适用于全世界范围内普遍承认的“民主”定义。
这就好像争论马苏里拉奶酪不是奶酪一样，因为我已经把“奶酪”这个词定义为了“切达奶酪”。



Matthew moppett
For most of the history of the US, minorities have been enslaved, subjugated, and abused by the majority. Republicanism per se has a really bad track record as far as protecting minorities from majorities are concerned.

在美国的大部分历史中，少数族裔一直被多数族裔奴役，征服，虐待。在保护少数族裔免受多数族裔影响方面，共和主义本身有着非常糟糕的过往记录。

Murphy barrett
Welcome to the world. Humans a fallible and can pervert any institution.
While the Republic doesn’t have a perfect track record, it is better than, say, a Monarchy.
The idea was to design a system of government that should work better than the monarchy they’d just thrown off. And we’ve been making reality closer to the theory for over 200 years.

欢迎来到现实。人类是容易犯错的，而且可以颠倒任何制度。
虽然共和制没有一个完美的过往记录，但是它至少比一个君主制要好。
（国父们最初的）想法是设计一个比他们刚刚丢掉的君主制运作更好的政府系统。而我们在过去的200多年里，已经让现实更加接近理论。

Jonas sandman
I see the point and applaude it, but now we have the minority controlling the legislative branch of the goverment. So in theory they can make life shitty for the majority even if they can’t enslave them. That is better than the evil majority rule but is it really a good system?

我明白这一点，并且为此鼓掌，但是我们现在有少数人控制着政府的立法部门。所以理论上即使他们不能奴役人民，他们也可以让大部分人的生活变得更糟。这比邪恶的少数服从多数要好，但是它真的是个好制度吗？

Murphy barrett
There is no good system of government. Merely the least shitty.
All governments, like any system, requires tradeoffs. For each benefit, there is a flaw. The question is, which benefits do you most value, and which flaws can you live with.
Despite its flaws, I would prefer to live in an American style republic, as originally designed.

没有好的制度，只不过不是最烂的。
所有的政府，就像任何制度一样，需要权衡。对每一个优点来说，同样有一个缺点。问题是你最重视哪些优点，以及哪些缺点你可以忍受。
尽管它也有缺点，我更愿意住在一个美国式的共和国里，就像最初被设计的那样。

Cb du rietz
Actually, this answer is really weird. Most modern democracies are ruled by law. Not only republics. Even kingdoms are ruled by law.
And I guess you wouldn''t need to vote in a republic, since there is no representation, only law…

实际上，你的答案相当古怪。大部分的现代民主估计都是法治国家。不只共和国，甚至王国也是法治的。我猜你不需要在共和国投票，因为没有代表，只有法律....

Robert clouse
The bad problem, you will not find a true Democracy anywhere followed by any nation in Earth. It doesn''t exist, and hasn''t since Ancient Athens.
The closest to it is Republic, the one most the nation''s on Earth follow.
Most nations on Earth are a version of a republic. A few Theocratic, and Absolute monarchy still exist.

糟糕的问题，你在地球上任何地方都找不到一个真正的民主国家。它并不存在，从古希腊开始就不存在。
最接近它的就是共和制，地球上最多国家采用的制度。
地球上大部分国家都是某个版本的共和国。还有少数的神权国家，以及纯粹的君主制国家仍然存在。

Kim Aaron
So, only Republicans are real Americans, and Democrats are wolves in sheep’s clothing?

所以，只有共和党人是真正的美国人，民主党人都是披着羊皮的狼？

Mathew smith
This is a good answer, and the notion that the minority aught to be protected from the majority is noble. My one concern with the American model is that the minority which is of principal concern to the Republic is the wealthy. No other group is protected as vigorously as they are.

这是个好答案，少数人免受多数人的侵害这个观点是高尚的。我的一个担心是，在美国模式下，共和国首要关心的少数派是有钱人。没有其他团体像他们一样被积极的保护。

Prithvi dheeraj reddy
Republic doesn''t mean a rule of law. Republic means that the head of state will not be a hereditary position and will be re-elected from the public, hence a Republic.

This is the reason though the UK is not a Republic, because of the existence of monarchy, it still has a rule of law.

共和制并不意味着就是法治。共和制意味着国家元首将不再是一个世袭的职位，而是会从民众里重新选举，因此叫共和制。
这就是尽管英国不是共和制，因为君主制的存在，它仍然是法制国家的原因。

Stanley luntz
Hmm… South Africa should stop calling itself a republic. No law here.

嗯....南非应该停止管自己叫共和国。这里没有法律。

Alex w s chan
Well then the next question is if America is not a democracy, why the heck does it invade other countries claiming to spread democracy?

好吧，那下一个问题是如果美国不是一个民主国家，为什么他声称要传播民主，入侵了其他国家？

————————————————————————————————————



Hugh brennan
Democracy was common? Aristocracy, monarchy, perhaps oligarchy, but democracy? In Britain, probably the most democratic of the great powers, fewer than 5% of the adult population could vote in the 18th century. The common man in Poland was still a serf for the bulk of that period. France was the first country in Europe to enact universal male suffrage in the 1790’s although that right was to come and go with the volatile history of French governments. French women didn’t gain the right until 1944! Swiss women weren’t full voting citizens until the 1970’s! Democracy in Europe, ha.

民主制度已经很普遍了？贵族制度，君主制度，也许还有寡头政治，但是民主制度？英国可能是当时大国里最民主的国家，在18世纪还不到5%的成年人有投票权。在那个时期的大部分时间里，波兰的普通人仍然是农奴。到18世纪末，法国成为欧洲第一个实施男性普选的国家。尽管这个权利随着法国政府的不稳定的历史来来去去。法国女人直到1944年才获得该权利！瑞士女人直到20世纪70年代才拥有完全的投票权！欧洲的民主，哈。

Hugh brennan
Er, no. We have a senate, an electoral college, and a federal unx of states. Representatives in our republic are in no way bound to vote in accordance with the popular will. What you call direct democracy was for practical purposes, restricted to smaller polities where the voters could be assembled regularly to express their will on public issues. If you look at Aristotle, you will see that it was not just the size of the voting body that made democracy difficult, it was the tendency of the democracy to be swayed to action by the emotions of the crowd the impact of a demagogue, or the limits of their information. The final phase of democracy was, by Aristotle’s analysis, inevitably a tyranny.
A republic, on the other hand, places brakes on the “passions of the mob.” Representatives freed from the immediacy of democratic reactions to events and issues should be able to act more dispassionately and “wisely.”
With the advent of computer technologies we have the capability of direct democracy on a mass scale. Would you trade that for our republic? Why?

额，不。我们有参议院，选举团，以及各州的联盟。我们共和国的代表并不是必须按照人们的意愿投票。你所说的直接民主是为了实际的目的，限制在小规模的政体当中，在那里选民可以定期集合来表达他们对于公共议题的意愿。如果你看看亚里士多德，你将会发现使得民主运作困难的，不只是投票规模，民主倾向于受大众的情绪左右，被煽动者影响，或者受限于他们的信息。根据亚里士多德的分析，民主的最后阶段，必然是暴政。

————————————————————————————————————

Tim drozinski
There’s been a lot already written about this, but I think that this added bit of context may help some understand it, if they don’t already.
In the American context, the statement that “America is a republic, not a democracy” is primarily a reflection on the 2016 Presidential election loss by Hillary Clinton, in which she received that majority of the popular vote, but lost the election due to the mechanics of the Electoral College.

关于这个已经有很多解释了，但是我认为加一些上下文可能帮助一些人理解它，如果他们不理解的话。
在美国背景下，“美国是个共和国，不是一个民主国家”这个声明主要是对2016年希拉里在总统大选中的落败的一种反思。在这场选举中，她得到了多数的普选票，但是因为选举人团的机制而败选了。

Piet de pauw
The answer can be summarized as follows:
In a republic people have real rights. Because individual rights are guaranteed by a constitution. A real republic is relatively close to a contractual society. Rights are contractually guaranteed. In a contractual society people cannot steal from other people.
In a democracy what is a right is determined by a majority vote. Any right what you think you have can be taken away by a vote. In a democratic vote people vote for something they can get for free at the cost from someone else. So democracies are unstable because they evolve further and further in this direction: “I would like to have free xxxx, and the following people yyyyy will pay for it”. This can be measured by the % of the GDP which is taken by the government. This % rises over time. In a democracy people can steal from other people by appointing - by majority vote- a person who gets them the authority to steal. Elections in a democracy can be considered as a auction of the money and rights which will be stolen after the election.
The USA started as a republic, but it quickly evolved into a democracy

答案可以总结为以下内容：
在一个共和国里人民拥有真正的权利。因为个人权利是被宪法所保障的。一个真正的共和国是相对接近契约社会的。权利受契约保护。在一个契约社会里人们不能从他人那里偷窃东西。

在一个民主国家，权利是由多数票决定的。任何你认为你拥有的权利都能通过一次投票被夺走。在民主投票中，人们投票是为了免费从他人那里得到一些东西。所以民主制度是不稳定的，因为他们在这个方向上演变的越来越远：“我想要免费的某样东西，而下列的某些人将为此付出”。这可以用政府占GDP的百分比来衡量，这个百分比随着时间而上升。在民主国家里，可以通过‘多数票决’来指定某个人—这个人得到了他们的授权—从其他人那里偷窃。民主选举可以被认为是金钱和权力的拍卖，而这些东西将在选举后被偷走。
美国一开始是个共和国，但是很快就演变成了民主国家。



Gareth jones
In some cases, the claim is used to deflect criticism that a certain practice or goal is anti-democratic. It says, “the United States was never intended to be democratic, so we can ignore that criticism.”
It’s a sophism, of course. It’s just a bit of rhetorical trickery. The House of Representatives is, and was always intended to be, controlled by the people’s votes.

在某些情况下，有时候有一些行为或者目的是反民主的，这个声明被用来转移对它们的批评。它说，“美国从来没有打算成为一个民主国家，所以我们可以忽略那种批评。”
当然，这是种诡辩。这只是一种文字游戏。众议院就是，并且一直都是被人民的选票控制的。

（译注：本文标题这句话是我在之前翻译的一篇文章里的评论，虽然字面意思很好翻译，但是当时其实没太确定它在上下文里的意思，所以我特意搜了这个，可能到目前为主，这个答案是比较符合当时那个语境的。标题这句话现在在网上比较普遍，但是跟上面那些正儿八经的学者型答复不同的是，这一届美国人民主要就是拿这句话来转移批评的，比如共和党搞了些不那么民主的事情，被民主党批评的时候，共和党人就会抬出这个神牌—你看，国父们都说了俺们不是民主国家，俺们是共和国。反之亦然，民主党的粉丝也会用这招。）

Norman owen
Agreed. Whenever someone says this my default assumption is that they are anti-democratic, and will do anything to avoid accountability for their propensity.

同意，无论什么时候有人说这句话时，我的默认假设就是他们是反民主的，而且愿意做任何事情来为他们的倾向逃避责任。