I think you're conflating "republic" with "federal system". The US is still very much a republic, in the sense that we vote almost exclusively for representatives, not for policies.

> If it was still a [federal system] people across the country would have little effect on you since a weak federal government would be ineffective in enforcing their mandates if it was able to at all.

The US had a system like that early on and it failed.

When you have a two party system and no one outside of their narrow policy definitions can be elected (not as it's illegal but as in not one can overcome the completely biased system) you vote for a representative is a de-facto vote for policies. If you vote R it's an anti-aboration, gun rights, anti-immigrant vote. If you vote D it's a gun control, immigration, climate change vote. Sure you can say we vote for reps but in reality you have the choice of R or D and nothing you say or do really changes the policies that you are voting for.

>The US is still very much a republic, in the sense that we vote almost exclusively for representatives, not for policies.

If you split hairs like that democracy never really existed at a national level anywhere. Representative democracy is still democracy as far as I am concerned.

None of this is about government power in the knitting space, though.

When the debate goes from "people want to take away your rights!" to "people in Florida want to pass a law and if you don't like it you have 49 other states to choose from" it tends to cool down the discourse a bit.