Worried about an election in which the people can express their will, Lee was laying the groundwork to contest the results or block an elected majority from governing. My guess is that Lee wasnвЂ™t just being pedantic. Why did Lee choose this moment-less than four weeks before an election in which his party seems likely to suffer defeat-to make the familiar, even pedantic, point that we live in a republic rather than a pure democracy? Why did he insist on the point so vehemently that he neglected to mention that power in the American system ultimately lies with the people, which means that our system could also be called a representative democracy? Did he mean rank as in вЂњfoul,вЂќ вЂњrancid,вЂќ or вЂњoutrightвЂќ? If the last, does that mean the tyranny of the majority leading to perverse rule by вЂњthe fewвЂќ? What did this short, misleading course in Civics 101 have to do with anything? It should matter to anyone who worries about the excessive accumulation of power in the hands of the few.вЂќ Hours after the debate Lee was still worrying the thought: вЂњDemocracy isnвЂ™t the objective liberty, peace, and prospefity are. Another tweet: вЂњThe word вЂdemocracyвЂ™ appears nowhere in the Constitution, perhaps because our form of government is not a democracy.

He was reacting to something heвЂ™d heard onstage there, in his home state of Utah. вЂњWeвЂ™re not a democracy,вЂќ Republican Senator Mike Lee tweeted in the middle of Wednesday nightвЂ™s vice-presidential debate. He is the author of Last Best Hope: America in Crisis and Renewal, Our Man: Richard Holbrooke and the End of the American Century, The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America, and The AssassinsвЂ™ Gate: America in Iraq.

About the author: George Packer is a staff writer at The Atlantic.

Puzzle express conveyor is full lie