> The government people are elected by the people.

By a tiny fraction of the people, because we are presented with no alternative. Most people would rather give their own opinion than elect corporate-sponsored sociopaths. Also for perspective, given our respective country's history, "the people" voting used to be white men above a certain age, if not only landowners.

> Choice is still a choice.

That's not how consent works: not being able to refuse is not consent. If you're unfamiliar with this concept from other areas of human life, you can read up interpretations of GDPR consent regarding cookie banners.

> they can themselves try to be the candidate (not implying that it is easy)

It's more than "not easy". It's rigged. In France there's at least a semblance of equal chances: if you get a certain number of mayors to support your candidacy, your campaign is paid for by the State and all candidates have free campaign clips produced by national television (following their directives) and broadcast on most channels ; also this will cover printing fees for your ballots. Also, donations to political campaigns are only allowed from individuals (not companies) and have a limit (a few thousand euros). Also, there's strict regulations (though never respected) on airtime equality between candidates/parties for the whole duration of the campaign.

Despite these better chances, the system in France is still rigged through other means and the result is terrible as well. But at least in France there's an appearance of plural opinion during the campaign. The United States doesn't even try to pretend.

> Reasonable restriction

I strongly disagree. Everybody breaks the law rather often (because there's so many of them) but whether you will face consequences is mostly a factor of race and class. For example, higher-classes kids doing drugs are usually not the target of police repression and therefore have no fear for their voter rights.

Also, it's just one of the many factors leading to people not able to vote. See for instance voter purgers, or for when they are in fact capable to vote, gerrymandering.

> democracy doesn't mean people are forced to vote.

I agree. However, no matter who votes, those who refuse to vote will still be governed against their will. That's not democracy: democracy is empowering citizens to take decisions in their lives and the lives of their communities. Government is the powerful entity above that prevents people from taking decisions in their lives and the lives of their communities.

> Where is the case of public transportation that can take you where you want, when you want and from you want ?

Trams, buses, trains, shared bikes, shared cars. There's a bunch of those. They may be slightly less convenient in some situations compared to an individual car. However, when you take into account maintenance cost and breakage factor, you're not necessarily better off. If you're not convinced, i recommend reading Ivan Illich who does a perfect demonstration that walking is faster and more efficient (when everything is accounted for) than car transportation. Of course i'm not saying everyone should always walk. There's plenty of good reasons to use a car, if only for accessibility concerns.