Contemporary means today, not hundreds of years ago. Most people today use the definitions described by Merriam-Webster.

In which case, as I have said, article you have linked is pointless.

If you want'o have an argument in 2021: don't use outdated definitions as the foundation of your argument. Republicans need to say "America is a representative democracy, not a direct democracy" — and then yall'd be right.

First, something which is incorrect doesn't become correct because it is widely accepted.

Second, America is not even a representative democracy, it is a federal republic. And the fact that it is a federation means that United States, by themselves, simply cannot be a democracy. To make US a democracy, it would first have to become a unitary state or, at least, lose the electoral college in favour of direct vote. Which would be a bad idea.

Third, since we are talking about US specifically, I am using definition as outlined in Federalist No.10.

Thanks for the sources! I really do appreciate it. Of course your tainted definition would come from Madison... As an Anti-Federalist, I have many disagreements with Madison over how the government ought'o be set up.

I do not see how it is "tainted". And it is not based solely on Madison either: I have already pointed out Polybius. To me, Madison's usage was a logical continuation of Polybius differentiation between Greek "demokratia" and Roman "res publica".

If you go by this definition: yes, America is a republic and not a democracy — but you can't just change the definition of words to make your argument work. That's the no true Scotsman fallacy, where you keep changing the definition of a word and end up making it meaningless.

Using original definition is not "changing the definition" - and as I pointed out, the original goes way further back than Madison. He was merely using an already existing distinction and applying it to US conditions, rather than making up a new one. By your argument I would actually rather use "republic" and "democracy" than cater to people who make up definitions. Using original definitions would also make many things about US politics much clearer - such as what exactly is the point of contention between the Republicans and the Democrats (and also why the latter want to do away with the Electoral College and many other things set up to decentralize the power).

Also, "representative democracy" would, if we wanted to use clear definitions, still not be a republic. To have representative democracy, you would have to have the Parliament be the ultimate authority. But in the US especially, President still has significant power, and cannot be just walked over by the Parliament; and there is also the Supreme Court to consider. And authority is further divided between the federal government and state governments, with two fully capable of acting in opposition to each other. This happens to fit perfectly with Polybius' model of mixed government.

But what he's describing as a republic is actually a representative democracy, and what he describes as being a democracy is a direct democracy.

First, as I pointed out, it is slightly (or a lot) more complex than that.

Second, I prefer using original terms.

That definition's even older that the founders'... why should we, in 2021, completely ignore the contemporary definition and cater to a man who died thousands of years ago? His definition doesn't make any sense today.

To make things clearer. Because differences in ideology between the Democrats and Republicans happen to almost perfectly align to Polybius' definition. So you saying that "his definition doesn't make any sense today"... itself doesn't make any sense.

Your argument is literally just "I can change definitions to bend them to my political opinions."

Humour me here... what would you say are my political opinions, exactly?