The biggest 'linguistic sins', circulating in a Democracy, are the 'Legal Fictions' considered necessary.

Legal fictions, to some extent, are necessary. However, we cannot disregard their 'reach', nor the inevitable damage they can create. Fictions are artificial contrivances that do not 'really' exist. They occupy 'spaces' in 'reality' which have no 'real' foundation. Usually, they are high level, linguistic abstractions that 'free-float' in 'social space'. A corporation exists as a high level abstraction, but not as a 'real person'. 'Money' is another fiction. Necessary? absolutely, otherwise we would not have a 'medium of exchange'. A medium of exchange is necessary to 'measure' so called 'profits'. Without 'profits there would be no 'personal incentive' to 'create' and provide the 'necessities of life'. The result is the tensions created by 'corporations',( unreal persons), and money,( unreal medium of exchange) between the 'artificial' and the 'real'. Stated differently, 'tensions' between 'real persons' and 'artificial persons', (corporations) and between 'real value' ( land, Gold, Oil?) and 'artificial value', namely a 'medium of exchange'( the Holy Dollar). Are all these fictions necessary? The answer is Yes! So, whats the problem? The problem is that, even as they are necessary,- to hold together the 'condition of togetherness'-, human beings should not be unmindful of the artificiality of linguistic 'fabrications' necessary to hold the integrity of the 'condition of togetherness', as a 'political entity'. That's why Statesmen are necessary. But, the 'human condition' is never deprived of a 'personal integrity' founded on 'real' values of Freedom and Equality. There, an Individual can find 'real personal' values founded on his/her Individuality, as a living human Individual. Those Individuals who want to live in their Nation can do so; those who want to live in their own 'Alice in Wonderland', can also do so. But, give us 'Statesmen', don't govern us, as if, we lived in 'Alice in wonderland'.

In a real Democracy, Party-loyalty is not real Patriotism.

In a real Democracy, Party loyalty is not the same as Patriotism. 'Patriotism' involves a 'political' or an 'ideological' 'posture' which relates to the Nation or the Country as a Whole. Loyalty to the Nation, as a Nation, is a 'holistic' or 'complete act' by the 'condition of togetherness' as a whole, and, by Individuals who purport to Represent the Nation. Any Representative who purports to be loyal or patriotic to the Nation, must occupy a political position that involves the Nation as a whole. He or she cannot divide the 'patriotism' into Democratic or Republican. Its the People who have separated into different 'camps', and then, have divided the 'Ideology'. You are either 'Patriotic'; or 'Loyal', to the 'Nation', or 'Not'. Being Democrat or Republican does not identify a Patriot. Unfortunately, it merely relates to how the Individual Representative wants to 'play' the 'political game'. Equally unfortunate, the 'People' become victims of the language they use and fall prey to 'Ideological blindness' and ideological 'gamesmanship'. Political Ideologies and 'Party-loyalties' divides the political Power of the People. We need more 'guidelines' for the Representatives who wish to represent the People in the 'Offices' of the Nation. The People do not have to change; its the 'Individuals' who purport to Represent the People in a Democracy that need to change. They need more 'humanity' and less 'political Ideology'.

Democratic Politics, as being practiced today, needs to be 'cleaned-up'.

Democratic Politics, as being practiced today, needs to be expurgated. The Language of politics could use a thorough 'cleansing' of the so-called 'terms' being used today and the so-called 'political language' being used in campaigns today. Its completely 'obstructionist' to merely allude to 'personality traits', 'sexual escapades' as a condemnation of 'Other' candidates. Of course 'character' is important in seeking political Office, but more important is the contribution to democracy being suggested by the candidates. The focus of a campaign should be the democratic structure of the society and the 'gaps' and 'lacks' of democracy in the 'arrangements' of the Nation; the arrangements of its Social and Political Institutions. When 'campaign' language focuses on 'personality traits' or 'sexual exploits' to appeal to the 'populace', the campaign becomes more like an x-rated novel than a political campaign. Today, instead of picking up a copy of an x-rated novel, we read the political headlines. Now, lets be clear about this. To be sure, personalities and character are important, but the focus should be on 'political language' and on how candidates are going to 'contribute'; 'establish'; or, 'correct'; the 'democratic values' or the 'visions' of the candidate. Politics is about governing a democracy; and it should not be a 'popularity contest' nor, some kind of 'lurid novel'. A candidate that engages in such 'politicking' does not have political values at heart; he is merely striving for Office. Unfortunately, most Individuals at the 'Bottom' of Three Branch Government, are not in an 'educated position' to 'correctly evaluate', distinguish, and weigh, political language from purely 'antagonistic exchanges' that are not 'democratic' in nature. That's why the standards for political language should be set at the Top and the candidates that are not 'versed' in political language should not become 'politicians'. We need 'States-persons', not 'politicians'. Democracy is about 'governing' the Bottom and establishing 'political Institutions' and 'Social Institutions' in some 'viable democratic manner'. How sad; democracy is self-destructing.

Political candidates and Political Parties need 'guidelines' also.

It's ludicrous to assume that a Political Party will automatically implement Democracy. Since Political divisions always exist within a Democracy, it becomes important to begin setting guidelines for Political Parties. Otherwise, the Party becomes an empty vehicle that can be used for the propagation of non-political and non-democratic practices, ideologies, economies, or 'classes'. That basic process leads to Plutocratic 'thinking', or a Plutocratic social, or just Plutocratic Ideals which lead to the 1%. Of course, it would be great, if the People at the Bottom could exert some control over Party Ideologies, but that is not going to happen. People divide themselves into Groups that eventually become Parties. Each Party has its own Ideology and in most cases, opposes the Ideology of the other Party. Hence, conflict between Parties becomes what we call an "election". If we have learned anything from election 2016, its the fact that the 'electorate' can be influenced by 'common everyday language' that has absolutely nothing to do with a 'real democracy'. But, those who use these 'shifty methods' do not have 'political motives' or 'political goals'. That becomes obvious from 'statements' that the Vice- President selected will be a Politician. What do they really want? Some means, or Agency must be established to weigh the 'sincerity of the Candidates', and their 'intent to implement Democracy', or a 'Constitutional mandate' of some sort. Failing these, 'objective guidelines', ( and they must be Objective), they should not be allowed to 'run' for Office. Of course, great care must be exercised in establishing such an Agency. We have Laws for the Bottom, we need Laws for the Top. Not just any 1%-er can be a candidate; that's 'self-perpetuating'. That's Democracy leading itself into 'self-destruction'; that's 'Plutocracy' transforming into 'Oligarchy', or, into 'Dictatorship'; or into 'Autocracy'. The Bottom of Democracy has Laws; the Top of Democracy needs Laws also. It takes 'selfless' sincerity to guide a Nation "of People", "by People", and "for the People".

Democracy was the 'founding', underlying political theory of Three Branch Government.

Democracy was the 'underlying structure' of Three Branch Government. A 'Democratic form' of Government could only be formed, if the political structure was 'triadic', or, 'triune', in nature. In other words, in a Democracy, all Three Branches have to participate in the 'governing' process. ( each according to its 'function). At the same time all Three Branches have to be 'constituted' from the 'Peoples' who are being governed. Hence, elections became necessary. Without elections, there is no other way of 'getting' the 'People', at the Bottom of Government, to participate in the 'elective' process and to select candidates to ascend to the 'pinnacles of political power'. To be sure, 'political power' is an 'attribute' derived from the 'People', or the 'Bottom' of the governing process. Consequently, elections must be about the 'structure' of the democracy and the 'institutions'; social, political, and legal, that 'hold together', the actual form of the Government. It is also, about what the government can 'do for the democracy', i. e., how can it be 'improved', how can 'racial and 'religious' intolerance, be eliminated; and how can elections be made more 'Just'. When, the electoral process, reduces itself to 'personality attacks', racial slurs, 'Party-loyalty', disputes about Party ideology, or economic classes,( which is the same thing), it is no longer an 'election' based on democratic principles. Lest we forget, Democracies cannot survive on the economic engine of 'profits', nor on the economic principles of 'more and more' of the 'same'. Obviously, that leads to the 1%. That leads to Plutocracy. Only the underlying principle of a Democracy( freedom and equality) can help the 'People' at the Bottom, not the economic principles of the economy, nor an election based on personality attacks and the influence of 'big' money. Democracy is being threatened by the same Individuals that used its Principles to get to where they are.