You’d think a hegemony with a 100-years tradition of upkeeping democracy against major non-democratic players, would have some mechanism that would prevent itself from throwing down it’s key ideology.
Is it really that the president is all that decides about the future of democracy itself? Is 53 out of 100 senate seats really enough to make country fall into authoritarian regime? Is the army really not constitutionally obliged to step in and save the day?
I’d never think that, of all places, American democracy would be the most volatile.
Good thing I never made such claim and absolutely nothing on my comment reaches that conclusion, then.
The details about your horrendous electoral system are irrelevant to the point, which by now is very clear you didn’t understand.
You’re not doing much to fight the stereotype of americans lacking basic reading comprehension though.
The point is that you don’t know the first thing about American politics, and are wholly unqualified to make any comments about it.
You couldn’t even comprehend the point being made, misinterpreting it so fundamentally I genuinely - non-ironically - believe you struggled reading the words being written.
And yet, what I wrote is an aspect of democratic structures so fundamentally basic it wouldn’t even matter if the US was the target of the comment. Funny how that is.