Will there be a major change with Trump's election such that the U.S. does not live in a traditional US Democracy anymore?  Such conditions would include things like: Trump running for a 3rd term, declaration of Martial Law at any point, removing Supreme Court Justices or ignoring a material order from SCOTUS, Executive Branch overturning a certified election result, refusing a transition of power, etc.      This will be certified "yes" if a major event occurs that is considered a fundamental ending of our democracy as we know it and multiple major news organizations declare as much.  

: This has received a lot more attention lately and more than I expected, so let me clarify a few things to try and help add some details around resolution and answer questions:

 Given Trump's recent statements regarding running for a third term, I thought I should provide some more details/clarity on how I would resolve "runs for a third term" in my resolution criteria from above.  In order for this to resolve "yes", he must 

run for a third term (not "win", but successfully run).  An attempt to run is only an attempt to subvert the constitution.  If it is stopped, then our checks and system held and thwarted the attempt.  Just as an attempted military coup would not be the end of our democracy, unless it succeeded.   Thus, it is not enough for Trump to declare, file the paperwork and start campaigning.  As long as his run is stopped by either the Republican Party, congress, state government, the courts or public backlash, then our system held.  So when would I declare the attempt was not able to be stopped and has thus succeeded?   The line would be if Trump gets on the primary ballot and is an option when the first primaries are held (caucuses are weird, so would not count that) and/or is an option on enough primary ballots to be selected as a candidate (should he lose the early decisions but is let on to the later ballots).  If he decides to run as an independent or other third party, the same would hold if he was on sufficient ballots for the actual national election. By that time, there would have been plenty of opportunity for him to be stopped via republican party (not inviting him to participate in debates or other official process), state action (not allowing on ballots, etc), congressional action (e.g. Impeachment),  court injunction, or public backlash.  If none of those stop him and he is a viable option for voting at the start of the primary (or later becomes an option in the primary process), I would consider our system to enforce the constitution to have failed.  Note, if a couple of deep red state midway through the primary adds him to the ballot despite one of these checks as a more symbolic measure (i.e. there is no real chance of him getting the nomination considering he has been removed everywhere else or dropped out), this would not count.  

Two other points of clarification on this item.  If the constitution is changed to allow him to run for another term, I would still resolve this as "yes." Given modern history has had term limits and our democracy as we know it now relies on that, and to then repeal/modify the 22nd amendment 

 for one person would be a change to our agreed principles for one person that we have not done for anyone else. It is one thing to change it on a future basis, but to do it for a specific person to continue to serve as leader, would be essentially be enshrining him as a "king" or "dictator". Also, such a change would most likely be done through representative electors (either congress or state legislatures) and not through an actual direct will of the people (i.e. it could be done by a small number of influential people who are close to the president and influenced by him). So, I would consider a repeal/amendment of the 22nd amendment allowing Trump to run for a third term and him becoming the nominee to resolve "yes". Similarly, if SCOTUS made a decision that the 22nd amendment does not forbid him from running again, I would resolve "yes." Given there is a very clear reading of the constitution that all legal scholars and really no reasonable person could interpret otherwise, then I  feel a 6-3 conservative court that so blatantly redefines the interpretation of the constitution for the benefit of allowing Trump to stay in power is an abdication of their role and check on the presidency, and thus is a fundamental change to our democracy as we know it.

Update 4/19/25:  A couple clarifications that have come up based on questions in comments that I think worth noting in here: 1) The market will resolve 

 if Trump is no longer president before resolving 

. In other words, if we have not hit a resolution criteria, and then he dies, is impeached & convicted, resigns or otherwise no longer in office for any reason, it will resolve "NO" since this is about Trump imhinself ending our democracy. 2) if there is a resolving criteria, but a chance for our system to rectify the criteria, I will hold resolution to see if that occurs.  For example, if Trump directly ignores a material SCOTUS order, but then backtracks due to public pressure or is impeached/convicted, then the checks in our systems worked and the attempt was nullified/thwarted.  This question is not getting at if Trump does something illegal or unconstitutional, it's whether our democratic system holds, so an attempt to subvert it that is stopped would save it.  