If you vote, but your votes don't matter, you aren't a democracy. You are a democracy when your votes meaningfully influence policy. In that sense, we aren't even a democracy right now.
It's worth considering that Russia has elections too. They aren't meaningful for many reasons. Real opposition candidates might be assassinated, or a candidate might be run with the same name to confuse voters, etc.
Gerrymandering and unlimited campaign contributions are prime example's of how "It's all about how he comes to power" is correct, but your conclusion is flawed.
"In the South Seas there is a Cargo Cult of people. During the war they
saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same
thing to happen now. So they’ve arranged to make things like runways,
to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a
man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and
bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas—he’s the controller—and they
wait for the airplanes to land. They’re doing everything right. The
form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it
doesn’t work. No airplanes land. So I call these things Cargo Cult
Science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of
scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential,
because the planes don’t land."
America follows the apparent precepts and forms of democracy, but we are missing something essential because votes don't influence policy.
There is much more to the idea of democracy than voting.
The federal executive also doesn't set budgets, or choose which congressionally mandated departments will be open today, yet it's 2025 and it is doing exactly that. And back in 2020, it was conspiring to send fake electors to cast votes for itself, and to fix vote counts in Georgia. (Which you seem to think is also not a responsibility of the federal government, but the courts have called it an official, unprosecutable act, so here we are.)
Why do you think that a government that is not bound by the need to follow the law, and has already demonstrated malicious intent will... Actually follow the law?
I mean, to the degree in which I expect there to be an election in 2 years, and 4 years, I suppose that counts as optimism.
I've not seen any indication that elections themselves are under threat. Given that elections would happen at state level anyway (and absent disbandment of congress) those elections would elect senators and representatives. Which in turn have the power to remove a president.
So yes, I see nothing to suggest that elections themselves are at risk.
They've fired the people responsible for combating foreign interference operations (CISA), have positioned the FBI and DOJ to investigate political adversaries, and have set up the military to follow unlawful orders. Buckle up. I will be surprised if we have free and fair elections, if we have them at all.
If all but the most bubbled media have been brought to heel by billionaire owners or threats and the ordinary voters, the ones who sat out the last election or thought it was about the price of eggs, are exposed only to authoritarian-friendly propaganda, I don't have a lot of hope for the next elections.
> The state election board and a Donald Trump-appointed federal judge have dismissed Griffin’s argument that the missing information should invalidate votes.
The protests you speak of have already been dismissed (the last link in the quoted section).
Seems like the system is working as intended, even under ostensibly adversarial conditions?
In 4 years the people will vote again.