> No, you didn't. The sentence was one point, and your "response" to the first half of the sentence is only seems like a response if you ignore the second half

> No, you didn't. The sentence was one point, and your "response" to the first half of the sentence is only seems like a response if you ignore the second half of the sentence. I'm not going to dignify this silliness: you quoted me out of context, and have yet to respond to what I actually said in context. I responded to the second part of your point right afterwards. I responded to the totality of what you said. Read it again. You may not have intended for them to be broken out as I did, which would just be to say you didn't intend to say "Many people choose not to vote" in isolation. That's fine - I still responded to the second part of what you said in conjunction with the first in the very next point. > That wasn't remotely clear from your previous post, but it's pretty easy to show that you have no basis for saying that. >1. I don't buy that this is the most democratic point in US history. You "showing" that I have no basis for that is you saying that you don't buy it? Democracy is the manifest will of the electorate. I gave specific supporting reasons for my point here, you could try to attack those if you had an argument. > 2. The US certainly is not the best example of a democracy, and better examples of democracy have gotten better results. I didn't say that it was. But there are many examples of 'democracy' in the world, with a great many different outcomes. Democracies are only as good as the will of their constituents.