Ah...well, are we dealing in exact technical definitions of words, Ebbie, or in the commonly understood meanings of words?

When Winston Churchill made the statement originally quoted here, which was: "Democracy is a terrible form of government, but it's better than all the rest."

...when he made that statement, he was clearly referring to the repesentative forms of government that we presently have in countries such as the UK, Canada, France, the USA, etc....he was NOT referring to a system which operates by direct majority vote of the people on every single decision and issue.

When someone refers to the USA now and calls it a "democracy", it is completely obvious that they mean it is a representative democracy in the form of a republic.

A representative democracy in the form of a republic can be subverted without technically breaking the rules when its major political parties come under the controlling influence of large money interests to the detriment of the general public and are only pretending to be representative of the public. And that is what has happened.

The writers of your constitution did not anticipate such a situation arising (with the possible exception of James Madison, who warned against the rise of political parties). They did not realize what the advent of the multinational corporation could mean in the long run to the representative democracy they were trying to establish in the late 1700s.

The Constitution is not set up to properly protect itself against what is presently occurring. Nor are the constitutions of other nations. We face a new form of oppression which our laws are not really adequate to address.