If you redefine democracy to be the narrowest possible interpretation, you eliminate every government in the world. You also make the word pretty much useless.
There are some governments who claim authority to take any action authorized by the democratic process. The US government is not among them. Ergo, it is not properly classified as a "democracy."
I don't think there's a better source of information about whether the government of the united States of America is a democracy than the position papers written to advance the four corners of its founding instruments, and they deliver an unambiguous "no."
Let's say, for a a moment, that your definition, which seems to conflate these two distinguishable scenarios (one in which a government's power is strictly limited and enumerated, and another in which that power extends to the bounds of whatever a voting majority or their representatives might desire), is a reasonable one.
How, then, do you discuss this distinction?
...and even by your definition, while an individual state might quality, the government of the USA does not: "supreme power" is wholly unavailable through the US government, at least in its legitimate purview (of course it exceeds this boundary frequently and flagrantly). It has dominion only over the specific areas outlined in the constitution; those not mentioned are reserved for the states or the people.
I'm not a constitutional scholar, so forgive me. What exactly do you think unambiguously demonstrates that the United States is not a democracy?
> ...and even by your definition, while an individual state might quality, the government of the USA does not: "supreme power" is wholly unavailable through the US government, at least in its legitimate purview (of course it exceeds this boundary frequently and flagrantly)
I feel like the definition addressed this. (In fact, given that this is Webster's, I'd expect that the definition was written to specifically include the United States government.) The definition says "the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly". The fact that the Constitution reserves nonenumerated powers for "the states or the people" indicates a recognition that the power is vested in the people. The "legitimate purview", as you put it, consists of powers granted by the people who hold "supreme power".
We don't have that. We get to pick from a closed set of possible representatives and they aren't bound to follow our desires. (Or even check...)
It's not the indirection of the representative, it's that they aren't required to even try to represent. Your vote in the USA essentially elects a mini-tyrant who theoretically wants to be elected again so much that they'll pander to you in exchange for that but only so far as they can use you. As soon as they'll get enough money by selling you out to compensate for your lost vote, they will.
And worse, this is how it's supposed to work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig
Every time there's an argument about wanting more democracy in the US, it seems someone always appears to say "but that's mob rule!". No, nobody wants mob rule. But there's a canyon between what exists now and what a more representative government could look like.
Predictably, the argument devolves into one about direct democracy vs. representative democracy, and that's really not the issue at all.
The issue is that the current system consistently acts contrary to the will of the people.
To quote the Princeton study from your video:
The preferences of the average American appear to have only a
minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon
public policy.That's a feature, not a bug.
There's plenty of time to undo the actions of the past 10, 20, even 30 years.
If you sit back on your heels, throw your arms up in the air, don't vote and say nothing, then you won't be participating in democracy. But if you do use your voice and vote then at least you can say you tried. Everything won't always go your way and we don't have a perfect system. But given our diverse population it is a pretty good one. I say that while in full agreement that there are a lot of laws that need to be reversed or undone.
You'll never entirely remove money from politics. And, we should keep trying to remove it even though we know we won't end up with a perfect solution. That said, lobbyists aren't inherently evil and many share our viewpoints (for example, the EFF)
The US is a plutocracy. It's in no sense a working democracy. There's a public voting circus every couple of years, but policy - which is the only thing that really matters in politics - is largely defined by Wall St, the Fed, and by mil-ind corporate lobbying groups.
All of the above are politically unaccountable and legally untouchable. See for example the ridiculous excuses made to prevent the passage of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Transparency_A...
Just because an election or a vote doesn't go your way, or the government doesn't shift dramatically every election, doesn't mean the nation does not have a working democracy.