Just one disagreement. You said we are a representative republic, not a democracy. A representative republic is a form of democracy. It is not a direct democracy, but it is still considered a democracy. It would be impossible for almost any country to be a direct democracy. Direct democracy can exist only in small populations. Direct democracy requires the public to vote on every issue. Can you imagine every qualified voter in the US voting on every issue brought up in Congress when we can’t even get most people to vote for president? We’d hardly have any time to do anything else. The vast majority of voters are also not well-informed on the issues. In my opinion, voting on every issue would be an administrative impossibility in a country the size of the United States. The country that comes closest to direct democracy is Switzerland, but its population is about the same as the state of New Jersey. There are no US states or cities that have direct democracy.
“A democratic republic is a form of government operating on principles adopted from a republic and a democracy. Rather than being a cross between two entirely separate systems, democratic republics may function on principles shared by both republics and democracies… . .
“In the US, the notion that a republic was a form of democracy was common from the time of its founding, and the concepts associated with representative democracy (and hence with a democratic republic) are suggested by John Adams (writing in 1784):
“No determinations are carried, it is true, in a simple representative democracy, but by consent of the majority or their representatives.”
“Most western countries have representative systems. Switzerland is a rare example of a country with instruments of direct democracy (at the levels of the municipalities, cantons, and federal state). Citizens have more power than in a representative democracy.”