We can certainly say that there is a consensus structure behind the person elected, but the final decision I do not think is affected proportionally and “democratically” by the support base.
It seems to me more like a feedback loop designed ad hoc to set the stage for the next step.
This opens another long conversation.
Assuming we "agree" and "know" what democratic means and also that it's a good thing, the debate is: if it's not democratic (?) then the people don't count.
This means that billions of people in history, everywhere, never had a say on anything for millenia.
Which I obviously think is not the case.
There is support and consensus in all power structures, regardless how much "democratic" they are.
Leaderism is bad thinking :)
