The problem is that your argument is unsound. > All of our leaders were "democratically" elected. We have one choice at the ballot and you can vote Yes or No.

The problem is that your argument is unsound. > All of our leaders were "democratically" elected. We have one choice at the ballot and you can vote Yes or No. You place your "secret" ballot (filled out in a closed booth!) into a separate "Yes" box or "No" box in full public view of election officials, who just signed you in and have pen and paper in their hands. Our leaders enjoyed an overwhelming public support as a result. This is Socialism. That's not socialism. That's authoritarianism. Look in any dictionary — you won't find any of them say that sham elections are a component of socialism. Of course, you can make the argument that socialist societies are necessarily authoritarian, but you're not. You're just pointing at an authoritarian society that called itself socialist (and which, incidentally, also called itself a democracy despite not being one) and saying "this is definitionally socialism, and socialism necessarily entails everything we see here." Regardless of what you actually think of socialism, that's not a sound logical argument.