In The State and Revolution, Lenin writes:

A democratic republic is the best possible political shell for capitalism

I do not understand how this could be better for the bourgeoisie than, for instance, a system where elections were restricted to millionaires, or where votes were weighted according to one’s wealth. What advantage does the bourgeoisie gain by exposing political power to the proletarian masses? I am aware that public opinion can be manipulated by bourgeois media, but why take that risk at all? It seems like a vulnerability to me.

This leads to another question:

Suppose a genuine Marxist party runs a successful election campaign, leveraging social media, for example, and wins. Once in power, assuming they don’t get corrupted or killed along the way, they begin to implement Marxist theory, not reformism, much like a Leninist vanguard party would: they expropriate the bourgeoisie, replace the existing state with the dictatorship of the proletariat, arm the workers, bring democracy into the workplace, and so on, essentially establishing socialism. In some countries, the executive branch can even bypass the parliament if it’s an obstacle. Naturally, they would face immense pressure from the bourgeoisie and likely from other countries, but wouldn’t a revolution encounter the exact same pressures? Furthermore, winning an election would likely carry greater perceived legitimacy, both among the domestic population and internationally, than a revolution would. Consequently, global public opinion might be more inclined to support the movement. So, why not favor this path over revolution?