system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Democracy is overrated and not a useful type of government. CMV.

I am an American citizen, but I have never been a fan of Democracy. Even though many textbooks, writers, and politicians will claim that Democracy is the perfect government system as it "gives voices to the people", comparative studies of democratic regimes across the world beg to differ.

If you look at instances in Mexico, Nigeria, or even India, you'll see that even though the people are voting and are choosing their representatives in government (the hallmark of Democracy), these countries are faring much worse than countries such as China—which, despite a totalitarian regime and single party system that squashes all opposition, has had unprecedented growth and economic prosperity under state capitalism and unrestricted government powers and spending. 

Mexico and Nigeria both have huge corruption issues, and because of the extremely slow Democratic process, India has not been able to do much to improve the welfare of its citizens because of Democracy's never-ending debate. Comparing between China and India, it seems obvious that one would rather live under an "oppressive" government such as the Communist Party and experience tremendous economic growth, than be a part of an inefficient and corrupt Democracy such as those of India, Mexico, and Nigeria. 

Furthermore, historically, totalitarian regimes under kings and emperors have shown to be the most prosperous. We remember the emperors of Rome and of China, and we learn about incredible English kings. Figures such as King Charlemagne and Emperor Qin Shihuang, among others, show how an autocratic ruler can actually lead a country better than an elected group of politicians can. And to cite the most recent example, Stalin's autocratic rule in the USSR allowed it to match America's power in a matter of a few decades, as opposed to the hundreds of years America took to reach global superpower status.

I understand that in the developed world, countries such as the United States and those in Europe thrive under a well-nourished Democracy. But I do truly think it is overrated and that Democracy isn't for everyone—especially in the developing world.

To summarize,
1. Democracies such as Mexico, Nigeria, and India pale in comparison to the growth, prosperity, and overall living standards of autocratic regimes like China's.
2. Historically, single-party rule and totalitarianism under kings and emperors (even Stalin)—not elected officials—has led to some of the greatest regime successes in human history.
3. Developed countries can have Democracy, but developing countries... it'd be best not to.
gpt
Your basic premise is that democracy isn't a useful type of government but then you pick the most extreme examples to illustrate your point. Compare Finland to North Korea and you'll get a different result. You also seem to be under the assumption that the seemingly huge economic growth in China means that the people are directly reaping the rewards but you hear countless stories about workers being mistreated and living in absolute poverty. Your argument also seems to ignore personal liberty and freedom of speech, two concepts that can't flourish under an oppressive dictatorship. Are you arguing that democracy isn't always the best answer or that it is a useless form of government?