Now the challenge of teaching people that we aren't Democracy. We are a Representative Republic. I'm not splitting hairs here, but it's an important distinction. We hold the word Democracy so close to our hearts, that those hearts can be easily manipulated, as they were the last 18 months when you some disagree with policy.

The word "democracy" is not found once in our Wisconsin Constitution, or in the U.S. Constitution or that of any other state Constitution in the nation. For a reason.

We just suffered 18 months of 7 elections because union power was threatened. The Republic of Wisconsin won, the mobacracy of unionization lost. And that's exactly what democracy becomes more often than not: a mob.

I discuss this very issue here, on the Patch:
http://caledonia.patch.com/blog_posts/wisconsins-revolt-on-democracy-recalling-republicanism

Ironically, Wisconsin had to use Democracy one last time to save us from Democracy itself. Thank God that the Republic won this time...

The reality is, Mike.... everyone having a say in how the government is run is not a good thing. Our founders realized it, and apparently 230 years of U.S. history confirms it, because the word "democracy" has not been added to any of our governing documents.

Fortunately, this 21st District will not swing any power to the unions. It's a false celebration. The redistricted maps based on state growth will change this year. The Dems will likely lose at least 2 seats in Nov

On Wisconsin!

I'm well aware of the republic ;]. Check out my other stories. Focusing on my use of the word democracy to represent the voters is a stretch. Also the guardian used my pic of Bill Gates leaving Bilderberg. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-news-blog/2012/jun/05/bilderberg-2012-chantilly-occupy?newsfeed=true

But I do agree, most people are unaware of the constitutional republic we reside in.

The problem with the race in Racine, as I saw it (and I AM an "outsider" living in Oklahoma) was that the unions thought all they had to do was oust one of the four challenged Senators in order for the Democrats to "re-take" control of the Senate so they concentrated their efforts on yours as being "the most vulnerable." There APPEARS to have been several instances of voter fraud, electioneering at polling places and possibly even vote-buying, so with such a small margin of "victory" I won't be surprised to find out that a recount challenge is made. There CERTAINLY would be if the apparent results were reversed. Liberals are notorious for refusing to accept election results. If they don't care for the outcome, they challenge the results by running to the nearest court with a liberal reputation in hopes the results can be declared "unconstitutional," or they demand recount after recount in hopes that their friends in Democrat-majority precincts can manufacture enough votes to reverse the outcome, or they simply petition for yet ANOTHER vote, hoping to have an "acceptable" outcome next time. This is, of course, only if the race is reasonably close...except in the case of California's Prop 8, which was a blowout so they used the courts instead of phony "re-counts." It's been a puzzlement to me that every proven instance of voter fraud has been to the benefit of the Democrats. Any ideas why?