I wrote some comments below, but before you respond to that if you don't mind, could you write a comment with your answer to the question: Would you prefer that the president of the United States not be elected by a direct popular election, and if so, what would you prefer instead?
Now that you've answered that. Here are my replies to your comments:
"authoritarian" as it refers to liberal geopolitics is a completely frivolous word with absolutely no useful meaning.
For the purposes of this conversation, my definition of the word is as follows:
"a political system characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in the rule of law, separation of powers, and democratic voting."
I don't believe communism or socialism are inherently authoritarian ideas, but I believe they have had notable examples of authoritarian implementations. Technically most "liberal democracies" today do some socialist things (depending on which definition you choose): e.g. the welfare state and public management of infrastructure.
look into how the democracy of China works. look into how the democracy of Cuba works
I have, and if wikipedia is to trusted, I don't like what I see. For a democracy to work, decisions should reflect the approximate desire of an informed populace. This requires the freedom of speech and press which neither the governments of China or Cuba allow. Cuba has elections, but they are a formality since no one else but the ruling party can actually run for any given seat. I didn't see much about the
State And Revolution is an incredibly insightful reading on the historical development and understanding of the state
I tried to start reading it, but the terminology is unfamiliar and I don't think I could comprehend it properly (or at least not as well as I'd like to). Do you perhaps know if there is a more modern resource that conveys the same ideas but with simpler language? (Perhaps a recently written summary with pertinent examples for how the ideas might apply to modern situations like how this book review comments on Henry George's book Progress and Poverty)
How do you define "failure" in this context? What makes one country more of a failure than another?