Since we're having this strange argument about "democracy" v. "republic" again, let me put in a case for the term "Constitutional democracy" to describe our system of government. Constitutional means a structure in place that defines/limits government and protects rights/liberty.

Democracy means that members of that government who make decisions are chosen by a majority of citizens. The reason I like this formulation is that "Constitution" and "Democracy" are inherently in tension, and in historically meaningful ways.

One of the core tensions in American life is how we "constitute" a democratic polity. That is, who gets to participate, how, and what effect does that participation have on society as a whole. Also, the "constituting" part is broader than the "Federal Constitution" of 1787.

In fact, some countries (like the UK) have an "unwritten" constitution based on centuries of practice and precedent. It is still called a "constitution" because it forms the basic framework for governance and defines the limits and roles of government.

When we think of "constitutional" in a broader sense in the US than just the 1787 "Constitution", the concept privileges an array of state, local and common habitual practices and procedures that lend legitimacy to a government.

At any given time there are people on the "outside" of the formal political order, knocking on the door to have their voices heard. Today that could mean children, non-citizen adults, disfranchised felons. In the past that has meant women, African Americans, non-propertyholders.

Many of our debates today - like in the past - are really about how legitimate we view certain kinds of political action. Defining certain actions as "non-political" is a way of constituting a democratic polity that excludes certain participants, or certain modes of expression.

Any discussion of "riots" will invoke this debate, for example. Rarely are the participants in a "riot" actual non-citizens legally barred from voting. It is the MODE of their action that the rest of society must decide if it is a legitimate form of political agitation.

But the tendency toward "riots" are often used by elites to declare whole classes of people as outside the legitimate democratic polity. "We won't give in to the rioters" is itself a statement about constitutional democracy, just as "they won't hear us unless we riot!" is.

And what counts as legitimate is historically contingent, often depending on immediate circumstances, and on selective use of precedent ("just like the Boston Tea Party!" "MLK said riots are the voice of the unheard!").

Needless to say, the concept of "constitutional democracy" as an inherent tension between "norms of legitimacy" that protect rights and processes, etc. and a debatable domain of "democratic polity" is at the heart of my 1860 book.

By looking at at that election in four different places, I'm taking the measure of HOW various people in different social environments constructed, defended or challenged the democratic polity.

Back to the main point... I have no problem with the term "Republic." We are a Republic - a Constitutional, Federal Republic. I just think the term is limited. It means we are not a monarchy. Turkmenistan calls itself a "Republic." But it has no "democratic" elements to it.

We are also Federal, with shared powers. I'd say that "Deep Federalism" is our system since power is shared not just by the central "Federal" government and State governments, but also by county and municipal governments, and by private entities that govern individuals.