The term "democracy" is a high level linguistic abstraction and is too general and hence allows for language manipulation and obfuscation at the more specific level. That's 'political language' for you. But, language just 'free floats' abstractly and never settles to the individual level in a 'real manner'. Of course, in all political activity, it becomes necessary to 'talk' democratically. But, we shouldn't ignore the fact that language can be useful for talking, but not for 'doing'. 'Doing democracy' is a different game. 'Doing democracy' involves the real individual referred to by the language of the policy or law. I have previously said that an 'algorithm of democracy' may be possible. In such a case, we can include and exclude each and every individual referred too by the policy or law. The importance of that is that everyone is counted and accounted for in policy or law. In other words no one is excluded from the accurate democratic policy or law being allude too. In such an algorithm, the individual is retained as a number which demands accountability within the equation called 'democracy'. The individual is not further reduced to the digital language of the computer. The individual is considered a number and is counted as an individual with all the mysterious qualities of the human condition. The reduced digitalization of computer language is just as unattainable as the generality of high level political abstractions. The real individual 'resides' somewhere between these two extremes. Democratic government is government of the real individual, not high level abstract ideals or low-level digitalizations. A government "of the People", "by the People" and "for the People" is a government by individuals, not computers. Turning government over to computers is as dangerous as turning government over to the 1%. Its not democratic and its not 'Freedom and Equality.