You are correct, The USA is a representative republic.

I suppose over time, we have begun to refer to ourselves and to our form of government as a "democracy", as meaning a type of government featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically. But as you point out, calling our government a democracy is incorrect.

What's interesting is to try to understand the differences between a democracy and a representative republic. After you tweaked me on the use of the word, I did a little research.

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: rule by omnipotent majority. In a Democracy, individuals or any group of individuals composing the minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of the majority. It is a case of majority-over-man. The majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government.

Thomas Jefferson opposed the weaknesses of the democratic style of government established by our Constitution, when in 1782 he wrote, "...An elective despotism was not the government we fought for . . ." He also denounced the despotic concentration of power in the legislature, under the Constitution.

Jefferson wrote, "All the powers of government, legislative, executive, judiciary, result from the legislative body. Concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, as opposed to by a single one. A collection of despots would surely be as oppressive as one."

The framers of our Constitution were aware of the weaknesses of democracy. The Framing Convention’s records prove that by decrying the "excesses of democracy". The Framers, by their recognition of the "excesses of democracy," were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a Republic as the proper form of government for the United States. They went on the write, "The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread, and will be for long years. That of the (President) will come it’s turn, but it will be at a remote period."

They went on to observe that, "There can be no legal system which protects the individual or the minority against unlimited tyranny by the majority.

So, the framers chose a "republic" as the form of government for their new country. The purpose of a Republic is to control the majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect the individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of the minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general.

The framers then argued and eventually wrote and agreed to The Constitution. This system of Constitution-making, for the purpose of establishing constitutionally limited government, is designed to put into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence: that the people form their governments and grant to them only "just powers," limited powers, in order primarily to secure and keep secure their God-given, unalienable rights. This form of representative republic is designed, above all else, to preclude the existence of any governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate the individual’s rights--to endanger the people’s liberties.

So where are we today? Is the system that the framers put in place working?

I'll direct you to the Twelve Basic American Principles written and used by the framers in creating the Constitution. Here they are...

http://lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/index.html

I know this is a lengthy response, Figmo. But I wopuld ask that those who have chosen to read this far take the time to again re-visit these fundamental principles. After reading them, ask yourself whether our elected representatives are following those principles going on 300 years later. I have concluded that they are not. And for that reason, I'll assert that our (government) is pathetic!