Yep. Our form of government can be described as a constitutional republic as well.
Actually, it does. Democratically electing officials to represent groups of people is like the exact definition of representative democracy. Our government can be described by multiple terms. Maybe we can have a discussion about it in a separate thread.
Actually, I think the HoR is where you’d expect elected officials to most closely match the votes cast. There are 435 districts, each with approx 700,000 people in them, so there’s a level of granularity yu have here - you don’t have the “big chunk mechanics” of Senate votes and Electoral Collage to put things askew.
I agree, of the three points, this one is the least helpful. You make a good argument. The fact that Alaska has the same amount of influence as California in the Senate implies an Alaskan voter has disproportionately more influence over policy than a Californian voter. Is this a problem?
Similarity, with Presidential elections, your vote may count for more or less depending on which state you call home.
The responses seem to be along the lines of “this is how the system works”. That’s great and all, but if the results of that system are a government that doesn’t represent the voters, isn’t that a problem and at what point are we no longer a democracy?