Does the term "representative democracy" ring a bell? The US is a representative democracy and a constitutional republic. The difference between the US as a democracy and, say, the UK, as a democracy lies in the form of government. One is a constitutional republic while the other is a constitutional monarchy. Both are democracies.

I don't mean to split hairs but when I read or hear the assertion that the US is not a democracy then I have to ask if it's not a democracy then what is it? And answering "a republic" isn't a valid response because one is chalk and the other is cheese. If not a democracy then it must be a dictatorship because that's the antonym of democracy.

Yes, the term does "ring a bell;" but it's an inaccurate term, particularly when applied to the United States where the states (not the people) were supposed to elect the President and Senators.

It's a constitutional republic and it is based not on the rule of the people but on the rule of law.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

The rule of law is distinct from the rule of a monarch. Whereas the edicts of a monarch carry authority in an absolute monarchy, the rule of law is paramount in a representative democracy. The law is created by the representatives of the people, the representatives were put there election, not by mandate. Those are hallmarks of representative democracy. It doesn't matter a hoot if it's a republic with a president, such as in France, or a constitutional monarchy with a monarch, such as in the UK, the rule of law is paramount.

To reiterate - a republican form of government exists where there is no monarch. A president in a republic can have political power, such as in the US or be a figurehead without political power, such as in Eire. Both are republics. The president in both republics is elected - the mechanism may be different but the fact is that they are elected and not appointed due to an accident of birth such as in most monarchies (allowing for those periods in British history where for political reasons monarchs were appointed by government). Electing the president is a hallmark of a democracy.

The legislatures are important. In the US House representatives are elected by a district, Senators are directly elected, two per state. Elected, not selected and appointed. In the Irish Republic has its Dáil of elected members, the upper house being a mix of elected by parliamentary reps and the Taoiseach. It's a democracy for all of that and a republic.

In my country the federal parliament is a mix of Westminster and Washington. We are a constitutional monarchy. The lower house of parliament has members elected by constituents, the upper house (Senate) has Senators elected on a proportional representation basis for each of the states and territories. It is a democracy and a constitutional (parliamentary) monarchy. When we decide that we want to become a republic we will replace the monarch with a president. We will still be a democracy but also a republic.

So - monarchy - republic; democracy - dictatorship.

"Democracy is that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions through the election of individuals who are to assemble in order to carry out its will" Joseph Schumpeter.