And it's worth remembering that, even in the US there exist examples of people who pushed for real change to these systems, and ended up detained, dead or simply disappeared.
It might also be worthwhile to consider the following well known allegations: revolving door appointments between bureaucracy and companies that it interfaces with and regulates; compromise of politicians by various interest groups using bribery of blackmail; the effects of corporate lobbying and donations to distort the legislative and electoral processes; the powers of unelected career bureaucrats whose tenures often outlast elected officials.
It's important to recall that the US is not alone is allegedly suffering from these maladies, but that it might suffer from them ought be a cause for concern.
Such considerations seem to raise the question of whether the president (and associated democratic and elected apparatuses) are in some way figureheads designed to provide a focus and an outlet, but may also function to protect the overall system against substantial reforms.
Such a description may help explain why processes in democracies often stagnate.
The is not to say that the Chinese system is "better" in any sense (our first consideration indicates that perhaps all large governing systems must essentially be the same), but it might be more honest about what it is.
This gives rise to the sense that democracy, at least in part, may be a deception that usefully provides people the illusion of a voice for change, while at the same time protecting the governing system by ensuring people do not seek more disruptive methods to alter it.
As Churchill said, "democracy is the worst form of government, except all others". Are there elements in democracies that entrench the status quo? Of course, especially in countries like the UK and the US with single member district, first past the post systems that favor huge parties that never change. Here we have a pretty complex party list based system that is often critiqued as "too difficult to understand for the average voter", but when people want to change who rules the country they have more than 1 viable choice of opposition. You may say, nah, it is not about the system of voting, duopoly is a feature of "mature" democracies that have been around for 400 years. To which I'll give an example of Poland where the lower chamber of parliament (Sejm) is voted for party lists proportionally and it always has a mix of many parties, and the upper chamber (Senat) that uses the classic "first past the post" system and in the senate 2 major parties(the biggest party and the current biggest opposition party) always get 95%+ of the seats.
Also, I think your points are very interesting but may benefit from some paragraphing for added clarity and coherence.
Another point of note is that, while interesting, it may be the case that no matter how much a government optimizes its electoral systems, it may still be subject to the other vulnerabilities listed above, which sadly might subsume any gains from such optimization.
Peoples Republic of United States.
Sounds the same.
Whose career got ruined actually? Johnny Depp is still making movies, Rammstein just announced a 2024 tour, JKR still is making millions upon millions every year with Harry Potter, Trump is likely to be the Republican candidate in 2024. "Cancel culture" isn't real.
but we've gotta update this now that the law will turn to software
(I don't actually believe that we shouldn't use NIST standards, but my point is that's a pretty weak argument for non Americans. )