The largest 'flaw' in the 'Democratic form' of Government is having an ideologically divided Supreme Court.

A Supreme Court in a Democracy, should be Objective. Even though the People might be divided into Political Parties, as are the Representatives, and the President, the Courts are obligated to remove themselves from the division into differing Party Ideologies. Of course, if both Parties were democratic in nature, that would not be problematic. But, is that the case? The Nation, as a form of Government, may be a Republic, but the Nation, as a whole, is a democracy; a Government, "of People"; "By people"; and "for the People". The division into Party Ideologies was prompted by the Republic form of Government. However, a 'democratic form' of Government 'of People' relates to the Nation as a whole. There is no distinction between a Central and a State form of Government when the underlying basis of the Form of the Democracy is 'the People". It time for Representatives, in whatever Office, to understand that they represent 'a People', and not a Government. Although, government Offices and their Representative, 'hold political Power', they 'represent' 'a People' and not an Agency, or, a Government even though it is designed to express the 'will of the People'. Its the 'People Stupid'. Well, the Supreme Court should be Objective and their decisions should reflect the 'democratic Ideology' and not the Party ideology which is divided into Liberal and Conservative. Maybe we should look closer into this 'division', to examine, if the division can also be a division between 'Haves' and 'Have-nots', or, maybe one between 'real People' and 'Legal Fictions', or, even between 'White' and 'Other'? People are never asked, if they want to be born; but, truly, they are very fortunate to be born into a Democracy. Its a shame when a Supreme Court cannot be Objective.

In a Three Branch Government (Triadic): the Top must 'listen'; the Bottom must 'speak'; the ( 'sides') Courts must judge the 'Democratic nature' of the discourse.

In a Triadic form of Government, the Top must 'listen' to the Bottom; the Bottom must 'speak' to the Top; the Courts must judge the Democratic nature of the 'discourse'. The Top is Institutional; the Bottom is real( Individuals are real, not 'corporations' or, legal fictions); and the sides are Institutional. The discourse is a 'genuine discourse' of the status of the democracy. A Government "of People", "by People", and "for People", can only indulge in democratic discourse. That's a 'Democratic politics'. If the dialogue engages other issues e.g. Personality attacks, etc., its not political discourse, and hence; cannot be about the 'democratic nature' of the 'condition of togetherness'. The 'condition of togetherness' is not an Institution; its a 'real condition' of 'real Individuals' living, side by side, 'next to each other'. No Individuals loses his uniqueness, nor his/her autonomy, by living in the 'condition of togetherness'. The 'human condition' is always real, whether existing autonomously, or, in the 'condition of togetherness'. Our 'human condition' is not 'dependent' on any Institution, or Institutional Government. We are real, our Institutions are only 'constructions' that should help the 'real Individual' as s/he exists in a democratic 'condition of togetherness'.( Of course, not all 'conditions of togetherness' are democratic.) Politics is about the 'institutional relation' between the Top and the Bottom of Government. The 'human condition', 'as such', can not be 'Institutionally governed', but, 'every' human being must learn to 'govern', 'his/her self' within the 'established Laws' of a Democratic 'condition of togetherness'. Hence, the Bottom has a 'responsibility' to the Top, and the Top has a 'responsibility' to the Bottom. The 'sides' (Courts or Third Branch) have a responsibility to be Objective in 'Constitutional Interpretation' and must fore-go Party Loyalty in their 'Interpretive Practices'.

Can Democracy, as a Political Institution, be quantified? Yes, it can and must be.

Can a Political Institution be quantified? Yes, it can and it should be. The different Political Institutions are a 'form' of quantification. For example; Autocracies, Dictatorships, and Kingdoms, with absolute Power at the Top, are a 'form of quantification'. All the 'Political Power' is at the Top. Only the Top can 'politic'. In such cases, the Bottom has no say-so. Socialism is an oxymoron. There is no such 'entity' as the 'social', which would include each and every Individual that is being Governed. The term 'Socialism' is very 'abstract' and excludes many of the 'real'Individuals in the 'Totality', of the 'condition of togetherness'. Of course, we must use 'abstractions' in the descriptions of a political Institution. In a Democracy, the situation is different. A democracy is a government 'of the People', 'by the People', and 'for the People'. Of course, these are abstractions also, but every aspect of the 'governing principle' is covered and includes all the 'real' People. Hence, few positions are appointments, most are elective, and the People who are being Governed, are the same ones who are doing the governing. When we say every Individual is Free and Equal, we mean every single Individual. That, is subject to a 'count'. No one should be excluded because of Race, Color, Creed, or economic standing, or 'class'. We have a 'census', we count individuals, and we can determine if anyone has been 'left out'. Democracies can, and must, 'count'; hence, they are 'accountable' to the People. A Democratic Government must 'listen' to its People; and the People must 'speak out' to its Government. The Top and the Bottom, in a democracy, need each other. Of course, the 'motor' of a Democracy is 'Freedom and Equality' of 'each' and 'every' real Individual in the 'condition of togetherness'. I say real Individual because the corporation is also a 'person' within the reach of the 14th Amendment, and hence, the tendency is to include it in all deliberations of democracy. But, the economy is not a Government; its a 'separate and different' Institution. The motor of Capitalism is 'money and profits', not 'Freedom and Equality'. Hence, success, in the economy is 'quantified'. Success in a democracy is 'accountability' and the inclusion of everyone within the 'condition of togetherness'. That 'inclusion' or 'exclusion' can be 'counted'; hence 'accountability', which is a form of 'quantification'.

Democracy is being emasculated by the economic system it created and protected.

Democracy is being emasculated by Capitalism. Normally, a 'successful economy' is a great achievement. But, since the 'political' and the 'economic' are driven by different engines, the two Institutions should not become 'inextricably' merged. Democracy is driven by Freedom and Equality; Capitalism is driven by 'money, the 'means of production', profits, and Legal fictional 'persons' who are protected by the Law of the Land. The creation of 'legal, fictitious persons' was a great 'increase' in the 'economic grasp' of the 'fictional corporation' and gave the corporation tremendous 'power' over its 'personage' and the economy. So called 'Freedom of Competition' by Individuals was rendered effete. Citizens United gave these 'fictitious persons' the right to 'participate' in politics. How sad. The 'Holy Dollar' is destroying Democracy. Most discussions about politics and campaigning is about the Millions required to run a campaign. Democracy must learn to control its economic monsters. The only source of help can only come from Law. Laws can require corporations to become more 'democratic'. Corporations need more 'democratic duties' and failing this, the Corporate Charters that gives them their 'existence' can be modified, or yanked. How can Government have the Power to create corporations and not have the Power to 'control them? Its 'fictional' to believe that once the State creates a Legal Fiction, that it loses its Power to control or to modify the corporate structure. That's ludicrous. A fiction is not real. Hence, it cannot claim the same Constitutional protections afforded the real human beings. However, the Supreme Court saw fit to extend the 'corporate involvement' in its own existence by allowing them to participate in Politics.( Citizens United ) Notice the connection with the Millions required to campaign. That creates a 'distortion' in 'political equilibrium'. It literally creates an 'Alice In Wonderland' in politics and the 1% in the economy. We need Statesmen, not economists.

A condition of togetherness, once formed, immediately divides itself into 'antagonistic groups'.

A condition of togetherness, once formed, immediately divides itself up into 'separate groups'; into 'antagonistic groups'; into Political Parties. That would not be so bad, if the divisions retained their 'democratic nature'. These divisions create problems for the 'condition of togetherness', as 'the condition' attempts to organize itself into a 'political system'. Then, if we add another 'value system' to the 'democratic political system', e.g., the values of an economic system, or, the values of a 'corporate system', we just add to the 'antagonistic nature' of the divisions of the 'condition of togetherness'. In fact, we create the 'problematic'. To be sure, it doesn't have to be that way, but human beings have a difficult time living as 'political Equals', and as 'politically Free', within the 'social'. That's why they divide up into Groups. Of course, the big problem that is injected into the 'political sphere' is the injection of 'economic' or 'corporate values' into the democratic 'condition of togetherness'. The end-result is that Individuals get Greedy and begin to hoard 'money and possessions'. Now, I am not arguing against having money and possessions. We all need them. I am arguing against 'greed' and the 'hoarding' of the means of production by 1% of individuals in the social. Among other things, this factor 'creates' economic classes; creates 'economic imbalances', and creates 'Haves and Have-nots', in the 'condition of togetherness', and has lead to the creation of 'Legal Fictions' or fictitious 'Persons', within the economy to increase the 'economic grasp' of the corporation and, indirectly, to transform a 'political system' into an 'economic system'. We create our own problems, and then we complain about the 1%. We need to keep the 1% out of Politics. Our present political situation demonstrates that some candidates can't even discuss 'political ideology', much less 'democratic ideology'. A politician is not trying to become a 'Representative' of the People, if s/he cannot 'talk politics'. Unfortunately, it seems that only the 'haves' are able to 'run' for Office, but I hope that does not mean that we have to become a Plutocracy. If we can't live 'Free and Equal' in a Democracy, can you imagine what living in a Plutocracy would be like?

The State is a necessity; Capitalism is essential; the People in a 'condition of togetherness' is essential.

A State cannot exist without a 'People'. A people cannot exist without an economy that provides the 'essential necessities' of existence in a 'condition of togetherness'. Without a 'condition of togetherness' a State cannot come into existence. Hence; the State exists only for the purpose of providing for its People. The State has no other reason for existing and cannot be said to have an existence separate and apart from the People. States are not created by nature; nor do they 'acquire' Political Power for any purpose, other than for the Political Institutions provided in a Constitutions. A Constitution 'constitutes' the concept of the State and delineates the 'States structure' and the ramifications of its Power. The State gets its political power from the 'Peoples' who have 'Constituted' it. Capitalism is essential in a 'condition of togetherness; an economy must provide for the necessities of the People; but both, 'Capitalism' and an 'Economy' are separate Institutions from the 'Institution of the State' and its Government. Government can pass Laws to regulate the economy and Capitalism, but Capitalism and an economy have no 'say-so' in governing a People. To be sure, they have a great influence on Politics, but they cannot 'Govern'. The influence of Money and the 1% must be kept separate from the 'duty to Govern' the 'condition of togetherness'. This problematic is not just a 'political problem'; its also a 'People' problem. We've said that the minute a 'condition of togetherness' comes about, the Individuals 'divide themselves' into Groups or factions. For example; Democrats and Republicans. Consider what is happening to the Republican Party today. Its 'self-destructing' and its members are saying they will not 'cross-over' and nominate a 'Democrat'. How 'mindless' and 'senseless' can the so-called, 'cream of the crop', or, 'Candidates', seeking Office get? Its not the 'Party' nor 'Party loyalty' that is important, its the real 'Individuals' in a 'condition of togetherness' that is important. How sad. When a 'condition of togetherness', divides up, it seems to lose its 'humanity'.