On this issue you could not be more wrong than you are. In the U.S. we do not elect the President democratically. If we did, the popular vote would determine who wins. Instead we us another method altogether: "The Electoral College." The states, according to the Constitution, are free to choose either a democratic election of electors, meaning electors proportioned according to the popular vote, or a non-democratic election of electors in which the winner takes all. In practice that has meant we do not come any where close to a democratic election of our President. Only two states proportion electors!
I am not taking a side here, just pointing out a fact. We in the United States do not elect our Presidents democratically. We could, but we don't! And We don't even elect our Representatives to the House democratically because of Gerrymandering. Nor do we elect our Judges democratically. We do, however, elect our Senators democratically. So of the three unequal* branches of government , one is democratic the other two are partially not, or not at all...
________________
*It is a myth that there are three "co-equal" branches of government according to our U.S. Constitution. The Constitution is very clear on this matter. It puts by far the greatest power in the hands of the legislature, i.e., the Congress. And between the House and the Senate, the greater power rests with the House. The least power rests with the Executive. And I leave it to you to decide where the relative power of the Court rests, but it would seem it must rest somewhere between the House and the Executive. But, of course, since we regularly wipe our collective asses with the Constitution, theory predicts and practice contradicts.