Correction: oligarchy, not "democracy".

Unless you mean it in the classical sense of the word, where "people" is not as broad a term, given how **citinzenship** was an exclusive status in the ancient city-states that developed these concepts.

However, even in that case -- which I find highly unlikely -- I'd argue that oligarchy is equivalently if not moreso applicable as an accurate description of said form of government.

Every few years, you (probably) go and vote _not_ for whomever better represents your interests, but rather for whomever seems to be the lesser evil: the 'best of the worst', if you will, out of a series of horrible candidates you absolutely do not trust.

That is undemocratic; no semblance of power is vested in us, much less "supreme power", and we cannot speak of anything even remotely alike to popular sovereignty within this context. By which I mean, we have overlords rather than "representatives".

And this, altogether, does beg the question: why do we parrot these terms as if they were ever a faithful description of anything? Have we no capacity for language, perhaps?

Appropriately enough, it's bollocks all the way down.