Authoritarian autocracies like China are showing up the west with how they can get shit done with their laser focus on long-term goals. Seeing this from the vantage point of your typical representative democracy, where politics is a shitshow of bitter infighting with glacial short-sighted progress (if not backtracking), some might start to think voting for someone with authoritarian leanings might be a positive change.
Op-eds from representative democracies that don’t have ranked choice voting say if only they had 1234 in their ballots they’d get some consensus in government. In the ones with low voter turnout they say if only they had compulsory voting. What’s Australia’s excuse? As soon as leadership changes hands between parties they immediately start scrapping and overturning projects that were in place leading to governance that’s only as consistent as it is dominated by a single party/ideology. Is that really democracy? Seems more like authoritarian musical chairs.
The problem is to become a representative you need to run expensive campaigns (in time if not money) to win votes which structurally selects for people of certain social strata. Party structures form primarily to help representatives campaign and those parties to be effective in competing for votes need to show contrasts with opposition parties values which structurally selects for polarization (and contempt). We end up with representatives that aren’t very representative of how the population lives or what they think. No matter how fair you make the ballot, no matter how much of the population you force into a voting booth, even trying your best to get money out of politics, the core system of representatives competing for votes is destined to lead to these corrosive effects.