Do those "minor errors" include the following vitriolic screed?:
Aside from the fact that one man's vitriol is another man's nectar, the answer is obviously "no", although, as you should be able to see for yourself that the passage concerned remains intact after the corrections were made, your question was therefore rhetorical and accordingly requires no answer.
Your charges that the administration controls the results of private polling and that the United States is imperialist are pretty far out, man. Are you trying to parody the far Left?
Let's take those in reverse order.
Firstly, I was neither parodying nor seeking to parody anyone or anything in what I wrote.
Secondly, I leave the question of American imperialism or othewise to others to answer (as at least one member here has already done).
Thirdly, I did not "charge that the administration controls the results of private polling", yet you mevertheless appear to suggest that I am accusing the US government of vote-rigging and/or other corruption in electoral administration. Whilst I am not necessarily saying that none of that has ever occurred in US (one has only to look, for example, at the last general election but one for the hackles of doubt and suspicion to be raised, at the very least), there are plenty of other factors that may influence both the outcome of a general election and how members of the electorate may vote in one in an ostensibly democratic nation such as US; these include but are by no means necessarily limited to
1. human error in vote collection and processing
2. the success or otherwise of campaigning in terms of marketing hype / the extent to which campaign fund values between parties may vary / the extent to which donation to party funds may be - or are perceived to be - corrupt
3. vacillations and uncertainties on the part of voters who support Republican policies on some issues and Democrat policies on others / the extent to which the main parties are perceived to differ from one another
4. the extent to which those entitled to vote actually do so
5. the extent to which and the reasons why voters switch party allegiance at successive elections / general disillusionment with the main political parties
6. the extent to which the electorate trusts each party to carry out its electoral manifesto if elected.
Let us examine these briefly, bringing into the arena some comparisons with UK where these might seem useful.
1. We know for a fact that there have been numerous occasions in UK in which counting has been doubted, postal ballots have failed and voting papers including proxy votes lost; don't tell me that this is a problem that affects UK only and that US is the only country in the world that can claim 100% exoneration from this.
2. Far larger sums per capita are invested in electoral campaigning in US than in UK, although that fact makes the issues neither more nor less serious in US; it is said (although with how much truth I cannot say for certain) that a greater proportion of Americans are influenced by more electoral campaign hype than is the case in UK. If one main party in US spends significantly more on campaigning than the other in what is effectively a two-party system, this is unlikely to make no difference to the end result. I do not know to what extent campaign fund sources are checked and exposed in US, but this is becoming an incresing preoccupation in UK where increasingly aggressive and intrusive battles are being fought even between elections over the register of interests of members of the British parliament to the point at which it's almost impossible for an MP to have some champagne in a pub without the snooping eyes of journalists and others trying to figure out who paid for it and why.
3. Again, I'm not sure how many US voters at any given time feel as though pulled in two directions due to such mixed support of party policies, but there is certainly a factor in UK today that is quite different from the situation some 25 years ago, which is that the three main political parties are far closer to one another and this naturally makes voter decision-making more difficult.
4. If you are satisfied that an election in which 45% of the electorate vote will produce the same overall outcome (and I do mean overall rather than state by state) as one in which 75% do so, then you can ignore this one, though if you don't, it is worth bearing in mind.
5. There are undoubtedly far fewer voters in both US and UK who no longer support the same party consistently as was once the case; disillusionment is but one reason behind that fact.
6. Corruption (both actual and perceived) in political circles and increasing doubts about how political power may influence human nature are but two factors that can exert influence on the electorate, resulting in an increasing distrust of politicians to do when elected what they say they will do during an electoral campaign; part of this also results in an unhealthy but by no means always misguided perception that all too many aspiring politicians are more interested in power-grabbing and -broking and their own personal interests than in the interests of the electorate and the good of the nation.
Nothing I have written here or in the previous post is, or is intended to be taken as, indicative, still less illustrative, of an anti-American stance on my part; any remarks therein which anyone may read as negative are confined solely to the government and its administration rather than reflecting upon individual American citizens per se.
Best,
Alistair