[chrisser]

Republic, not democracy ... this is a crucial error which maintains the progressive viewpoint.

We must use correct terminology.

Normally, I would agree, but I don't think Tyler necessarily had pure Democracy in mind. Our republic democratically elects representatives ("candidates" in Tyler's words). There are other ways to determine who the representatives are in a republic. Certainly there could be representative democracies that aren't republics.

I believe that Tyler was focusing on the mechanism of the representatives' election/selection rather than the ultimate organizational structure. In a direct democracy, there would be no candidates, for example. Also, as an example, one could have a representative monarchy and it could still be subject to his observation. I'd suggest that Tyler's definition of "democracy" would be "a system of government with elected representatives" and that could end up being a Republic or it could be something else.

But I could be mistaken.

[GOPBiker]

Here is the problem; ‘..I don’t think Tyler necessarily had pure Democracy in mind’

Your analysis is no doubt correct but is obviously done by someone with analytical ability. This is systematically being destroyed by our current education system (for the last 40 years).

Imprecise speech leaves interpretation which may be (and often is) wrong.

I am not trying to be didactic here but we as those interested in the future of our grand experiment need to help our cause by being clear.

I failed in this in my earlier post by not saying ‘Constitutional Republic’. It is easy to do and common use lures us like other seeming fun and accepted practices that go against our moral teachings.