Democracy and Republic... What's the difference???!!!

Anyone care to explain the difference between a Democracy and a Republic? I thought of this question while I was playing Civilization Revolution on my PS3. 

I googled it and got a load of results. I'd try that

The difference between a republic and a democracy lies in the ultimate source of official power. In the case of a republic, it lies with a charter; in a democracy, power lies with the rule of the majority. Yet they are often lumped together. Consider the words to the United States' Pledge of Allegiance, which adds to some of the confusion by proudly touting: "And to the republic for which its stands, one nation under God, indivisible ..."

Adding to the confusion is the fact that there are different types of democracies. A direct democracy is one which is ruled entirely and directly by the people; to decide on an issue, the question is put to the vote of the population and the majority of those votes determine the outcome. In a representative democracy, citizens elect people to represent their interests in the government, and these representatives determine how issues are decided.

In seeking clarification between a democracy and a republic, look no further than the names of American political parties and how they loosely define their boundaries. If nothing else, the names " republican" and " democrat" may be considered to characterize a Republican’s looser view of government and a Democrat’s centralized one. In a republic, people may vote for their representatives, but the state’s responsibilities are limited because they are clearly bound by a charter. Freedom is realized by the willingness of the people to live by the dictates of the charter. The republic’s charter protects the individual’s rights.

The detailed organization of the government of a republic can vary widely. In most cases, the head of state, as it is in France, for example, is referred to as the president. In republics, the head of state is always appointed as the result of either a direct or indirect election. In the case of some republics, such as Switzerland and San Marino, the head of state is actually a committee of several persons in aggregate. Republics can be led by a head of state who retains many characteristics of a monarch, and in some instances the president may rule for the duration of his life. Such an example would be the Syrian Arab Republic.

A Democracy Is controled by the people directly.
 
In A Republic the people elect other people to represent them.
 
Thats a simple way of putting it but it works I am sure youll get a nice wall of text :D

" @Smarter_Martyr: I think I understand now. So basically:  Republic: Power is centered around a constitution/charter  Democracy: Power is centered around majority  That right? "

Republicanism is an alternativist form of government (republican movements are framed as a movement in opposition to Monarchism or Imperialism), whereas democracy is a means of deciding who composes the seat of government, and is generally informed non-democratically. The form a government takes has never been decided democratically. And to be perfectly frank, there's no reason to assume that's a bad thing.
 
Democracy doesn't really exist. It's just a buzzword to make people think that when they throw their lot in with dozens of millions of other people, it seems like their voices are being "heard", when really they're just stepping in an echo-chamber.

A republic is a democracy that has grown too big

The form a government takes has never been decided democratically. And to be perfectly frank, there's no reason to assume that's a bad thing.

" @Suicrat said:

The form a government takes has never been decided democratically. And to be perfectly frank, there's no reason to assume that's a bad thing.

Yes there is. If the form that a government takes is not decided democractically then usually it's formed by a small group of people (or one person, a dictator) who seeks personal interest to the dismay of others. Take the invasion of Iraq, the majority of the populace of the invading countries were ignored when they asked their governments to withdraw the troops. And that's a small thing compared to the atrocities the US government has been commiting;
 " If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war [WWII] American president would have been hanged. "  http://www.chomsky.info/talks/1990----.htm "

" @Amorfati said:

" @Suicrat said:

The form a government takes has never been decided democratically. And to be perfectly frank, there's no reason to assume that's a bad thing.

Yes there is. If the form that a government takes is not decided democractically then usually it's formed by a small group of people (or one person, a dictator) who seeks personal interest to the dismay of others. Take the invasion of Iraq, the majority of the populace of the invading countries were ignored when they asked their governments to withdraw the troops. And that's a small thing compared to the atrocities the US government has been commiting;
 " If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war [WWII] American president would have been hanged. "  http://www.chomsky.info/talks/1990----.htm "

I'm not sure what a 227 year old government decides to do (in contravention of its own laws -- Only Congress can declare War according to the U.S. Constitution) has to do with whether or not the government's structure was decided democratically, 227 years ago.  What a government does with its power is not exactly the same as the form a government takes. "

" @Amorfati:  Directly related, but not exactly the same.  Fascism has been imposed democratically in many circumstances. (Look at the current administration, look at the previous administration, look at the Nixon administration, look at FDR, look at Woodrow Wilson, all have further-entwined the state into the economic sphere as the heads of the companies leading the economic sphere coalesce and shape the policies of government, that is corporatist fascism to a tee. The last 43 presidents were elected democratically, and that hasn't stopped the last 15 from pursuing fascism in varying degrees.) "

" Republicanism is an alternativist form of government (republican movements are framed as a movement in opposition to Monarchism or Imperialism), whereas democracy is a means of deciding who composes the seat of government, and is generally informed non-democratically. The form a government takes has never been decided democratically. And to be perfectly frank, there's no reason to assume that's a bad thing.  Democracy doesn't really exist. It's just a buzzword to make people think that when they throw their lot in with dozens of millions of other people, it seems like their voices are being "heard", when really they're just stepping in an echo-chamber. "

" @oldschool: Law that adheres to the principle of self-rule is the best alternative. Names, brands, talking heads; these things are superficial (and so if people want the chance to vote on them they should be free to). The aspect that matters is the government respects the rights of its people to guide their own lives.  Unfortunately, such a government doesn't seem to exist anywhere. And the closest thing the world has to it -- Switzerland, is beset on all sides by nations that want to erode its people's sovereignty. "

True democracy, the people actually have a voice.  A republic means the interest of the people are represented by a senate.
 
The United States is actually a republic.