How is a Republic that is not a Democracy, not dictatorial in nature?

[Jumpin]

Kasz216 said:

Jumpin said:

richardhutnik said:

In the debate over Occupy, out came, "America is a Republic, not a Democracy". 

That's because some of the people in that debate are profoundly stupid or ignorant.

The US is a Republic because it doesn't have a Monarch as the head of state, it has an elected official.

What method by which the American head of State is selected? Democracy!

Less so then you'd think.

When you check Obama's box on the ballot you arent' really voting for Obama.  You are voting for the delegates chosen undemocratically by Obama's party who are expected (but not bound) to vote for Obama.

Technically they could decide to vote for Romney or Newt or whatever, and the people would have no legal recourse.

Furthermore note all the Presidents who have won despite losing the popular vote.   Hayes,  Harrison and Bush.

Or hell the really fun one John Quincy Adams.  He became president even though he lost the popular vote AND the electoral vote!   (It was a 4 way race, if nobody gets the number of electoral votes needed the house of representatives voets for the president.  If there ever is a viable third party again, boy are people gonna complain.)

It's done this way because technically the President and Vice President aren't actually the leaders of the people, but the leaders of the independent states of the Union.

I am not talking about whether or not Obama has absolute power in the US. I am talking about how the Head of State is selected in the US, which is in fact by the democratic process. Absolute Power is not necessary for one to be head of state.

In fact, the head of state in most nations in the western half of Europe do not have any real power at all; or even much to any influence at all in the government.