I think it’s useful to model Democracy as a mock war which we perform every so often to forestall the necessity for real war.
That is, the objective in Democracy is to balance interests such that nobody who would win a war in pursuit of their own interests has any incentive to actually go to war—and additionally, with respect to, for example minority rights, that any game-theoretic incentive to engage in a losing war is also eliminated. (An extreme example of incentive-to-fight-a-losing-war is genocide; we want Democracy to prevent genocide, because any potential target parties in the case of genocide have a game theory incentive to go to war, even if they would lose, to make doing so expensive. Less extreme examples will also suffice, but may be harder to argue around.)
Thus, Democracy is a form of cooperation to the net benefit of the participants.
Defection in a Democracy is the majority taking any action which the minority would prefer to go to war than to allow to pass.
Vague language is often the result of vague thinking; most people do not actually try to be specific in their thinking; many of them don’t know how.
Vague language will also arise when language doesn’t correctly encapsulate a concept, or when the writer doesn’t know how to use language for that specific purpose; pointing more specifically at the wrong thing is being actively misleading. Thus vague language can often occur in areas where there isn’t a common and codified way of expressing specific thoughts. For example, this post is vague about what vague language is; the specific concept is one I suspect you’ve never had to specify, so it’s hard to translate it into words. Instead you focus on what it isn’t, trying to be specific by ruling out, rather than ruling in.
Vague language can also arise in areas where the common communication mechanism is necessarily lossy, such as when talking about qualia.
I think “deliberate” is doing most of the heavy lifting in this post.