Even if that were a precise definition of so-called indirect democracy (and it's not) it doesn't describe the USA at all. My representative's decisions are absolute? Really? Rep. Scott Garrett from NJ has absolute power? I better call him and let him know. I wonder how he will handle it when he finds out Sens. Lautenberg and Corzine also have absolute power. And since their decisions are absolute, I'd better shoot off an email to the SCOTUS and tell them they are no longer needed. And same goes for the President. I'd better tell him his veto is not going to be needed (although with this President, why bother?)
You see how your descriptions don't match reality? By the way, if you look up the meaning of "republic" circa the time of the Founders, you know what it means? It means a) no monarch, b) the people "own" the government and c) representation by elected officials. In other words, to the founders, representative democracy, which they called republicanism, so as to be more precise. When they spoke of democracy, they meant direct democracy, which we clearly don't have. (Although some states do.)
ROTFLOL!
Truly, is there an ABSOLUTE POWER?
I dare say freee has not encountered such a thing.
Though they may fight among each other occasionally as to which rights of yours they are going to violate today, when enough of them conspire as they so often do, your rights will be of no significance.
Look around. They do it all the time.