At least I'm willing to admit I'm wrong and re-evaluate my stance. Not a lot of people are willing to do that, even when blatantly and conclusively proven wrong. 

"No one in Canada disputes the results of elections because the voting standards are strict". And the main reason why isn't at all related to the rest of your post. It is simply that no party is trying to paint an election as fraudulent whenever they lose unlike the US. Also I never had to do any paper work to Vote in Canada but even if I had to at least here your not going to get unregistered every time at the whims of those in power for bonkers reason like, "you had the same name as convict criminal" all in a bid to try keeping you out of the poll station.    

"ID is required (and proof of address, I couldn't vote even with ID in the last election, I had to do a lot of paperwork to vote at all)." And there's no where in Canada where you could not vote with free ID. Unlike in the US where some state try to discredit the use of free ID like student cards in a bid to refrain the poor from voting.

"There are no ballot drop boxes like in the US. Advanced registration with ID is required for mail in voting, and ballots have to be RECEIVED not post marked, a week before the election happens (so up to 2 weeks earlier than in the US)." And this as nothing to do with why I have confidence in Canadian election. Offering more way for people to vote is always good. I would appreciate all those and still have full confidence in our election.

"The US could adopt those features from Canada that are supported by all the left-wing governments here." Canada can adopt a way better system than first past the post where parties can form a majority government with sub 40% representation.

"But unfortunately, the US has crazy Democrats who don't want a reliable electoral system. They call people racist if they want a trustworthy system like all the other modern countries." Pretty sure those other modern countries your referring to pretty much view many voter restriction bill by red state as racist.

"They said Trump was illegitimate and they are saying the future 2024 election will be the same, even though it hasn't happened yet. Then they are surprised the right thinks the same calling Biden illegitimate (how did he get more votes than Obama?)." Democrats did not challenge the 2016 election result, did not try to paint it as fraudulent either. Hilary conceded on the spot. So this is pretty much bullshit.

"There is no desire among the left in the US to improve democracy." Voting right bill senate vote pretty much tell the absolute opposite https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1171/vote_117_1_00459.htm. Plus if you are for improving democracy how about give representation to Puerto Rico and Washington dc. As far as I know they are us citizen lacking representation which is an obvious flaw for a democracy and yet Democrats are the only one wanting those to be represented in the government.

1: Corporations must not be allowed to donate to politicians.
2: People should vote for the parties they support the most, and then those parties should get a percentage of the senate/house seats proportional to their share of votes.

If you fix those two things, you can save your democracy.

If you fail to fix them..... rough times ahead.

Oh, another thing that can kill the two-party monopoly and give the other parties their voices.

Have two rounds of voting. First round everyone votes for their preferred presidential candidate.
In the second round, people vote for their preferred candidate from the two with the most votes of the previous round.

You seem to be implying that Paatar no longer messaging in this thread is another form of silenced speech.  I have read through this entire thread.  There were people who disagreed with Paatar's posts and disproved parts of what Paatar were saying.  How should this have transpired differently?  Should the moderators have silenced the people responding to Paatar so that Paatar felt more comfortable posting here?

In your case, my understanding was that you were banned for how you were participating in the discussion, not because of what your positions were.  Nobody banned Paatar from participating in this thread (as far as I know).

It's important to distinguish between "nobody is listening to me" versus "they kicked me out".

It's also important to distinguish between "they kicked me out because they did not like what I had to say" versus "they kicked me out because I did not follow the rules".

"1)In your case, my understanding was that you were banned for how you were participating in the discussion, not because of what your positions were.  2) Nobody banned Paatar from participating in this thread (as far as I know)."

Both those points are correct.

You refuse to acknowledge or even talk about anything I mentioned. Your argument is basically,  "hey democracies can't have safe guards and have to be absolutes. They have to be structured in such a shitty way that they end up failing". You don't seem to want to acknowledge that there are some anti democratic actions needed to protect democracy. Just like if you like peace, you have to fight sometimes. If you like freedoms, you might have to trample on the freedom of a human being to do whatever they like because some freedoms harm and restrict other people's freedom. 

Democracy isn't an on/off switch and I am telling you there's a better system but you're pretending I am talking about something else which I am not. In the real world, your idealized systems just don't work. Absolutism doesn't get you anywhere unless you just want browny points and don't have a clue why you would want democracy in the first place, except maybe as a cool exercise.

Where did I say or imply that Paatar was silenced or banned? 

Are you saying that if someone says that another person was treated poorly, that must mean they were silenced?

That person was treated poorly = they were banned? 2+2=5 ?

"Hate speech against trans, gay, or other minorities gets people riled up."

I reply to that by saying they were treated poorly and I find that sad, and it's a problem?

How I was participating?

Like how I was apparently asking too many questions?

Some of which were clearly rhetorical, some of which were clearly statements, and some others that were actually inquisitive?

What about the questions everyone else was asking me? Nothing was said about that. My questions are problems but theirs aren't?

Or maybe because I was apparently spouting nonsense without evidence?

I wonder what those links were I posted with my points? Links that those others failed to try and use against me.

What about the few links they posted as evidence? Nothing was said about that being a problem. My links are all useless, but theirs are all useful?

The only real difference in the participation, was that my points were from a conservative viewpoint, and the others weren't.

Then when the conversation is ended, I basically shake hands and say good game like a good sport, and I get banned for it.

How is that not following the rules? 

And if you insist it was a failure on my part, then the others were guilty of the same things, minus the conservative view, so why only me?

I agree with idealized systems not working in the real world, but this isn't what people try to tell you. Your underlying thought is, that we need to ban people with the wrong political stance to protect democracy. In order for an anti-democratic movements to get into power in democracy, the majority would need to vote for such movements.

Democracy needs safeguards in place to protect itself and it's people against tyranny of course. What you are suggesting though is so anti-democraric it's actually a threat to democracy and most importantly it would be an ineffective safeguard. Someone like Putin wouldn't let his intentions to be known. He sure didn't, I still remember him promising freedom of press etc in 2000 or something. Not that Russia was ever a democracy anyway.

So you'd still need all the other safeguards. 

This is not an idealized system at all. I live in such country and it's ranked as one of the most democratic. It's democracy is also very much protected despite letting people vote who they want.