My "rebuttal" isn't a "rebuttal". It's taking the serious lack of objectivity in the article to task. Yes, I am calling democracy into question. Especially repr

My "rebuttal" isn't a "rebuttal". It's taking the serious lack of objectivity in the article to task. Yes, I am calling democracy into question. Especially representative democracy which is the only real democracy that currently exists. The US has Donald Trump for a president. If that isn't a refutation of the hypothesis of democracy I'm not sure what is. In order for social and political sciences to carry weight they should be held to the same standard as all sciences. Therefore they should follow the scientific method:http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/dox/scientific_method.html http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/dox/scientific_method.html I've included the link so there's no confusion as to what the scientific method actually entails. Democracy is an unproven hypothesis that we are using to govern society and has shown time and time again that it can be poorly executed and have dire consequences. For example, Hitler was democratically elected. Your response to my response was by far the most pointless activity. You achieved nothing but showing that you lack a certain awareness and might have a reading comprehension issue. Thanks.