> An authoritarian who submits to regular democratic elections is much less of a threat than one who removes that check. This all gets pretty sticky. Putin, f

> An authoritarian who submits to regular democratic elections is much less of a threat than one who removes that check. This all gets pretty sticky. Putin, for example, followed both rules 1 and 2 (at least publicly). It wasn't until he'd consolidated enough power that he attacked #2 "for the good of the people". He was in office at the time. That's where I think really healthy skepticism around "stolen election" claims needs to be in play. When someone claims the elections are unfair (even when they win!) that's a sign they aren't making those claims in good faith.