The American Revolution doesn't count as an exception, because the King of England was at no risk of being "voted" out of his leadership of the colonies. Indeed, if that had been a practical possibility, the American colonies would I am sure gladly have voted the King out of his job as ruler of the colonies, rather than gone to war over the disputes.
The American Civil War doesn't count as an exception, because the Northern states conclusively demonstrated that they were not willing to be voted out of their dominant role in the Union of states. Had they been willing to be voted out, the South would gladly have seceded and gone their merry way, as they thought was their right to do all along.
Certainly Sadam Hussein doesn't count, because he was at no risk of being voted out.
Russia was perhaps venturing close to a democratic nation, along about the time of Yeltsin. But it surely seems not to be such now. The threats to Putin's power don't seem to be in the voting booth.
One strong indicator of a democracy as I define it is the presence of at least two strong political parties. These parties might not seem to be much different depending on how one measures such things, but if a politician is normally stuck in one or the other parties with cross party moves rare and dramatic, then that counts as separate parties for these purposes. If over the decades, both parties sometimes gain the upper hand of power, then that is strong enough for these purposes.
That's really odd logic. The South seceded because the people's fear of slavery spreading prompted the mass election of Republicans and Abraham Lincoln who ran on Anti-Slavery platforms, and the loss of slave states controlling the Senate. I think that was the demonstation of being voted out of a dominant role
I would agree that is doesn't count as an exception, but because the Southern States democratically agreed to secede and attack federal properties before legal agreements could be reached.