My comment was meant to be silly, but I do agree with many of these points. Democratic societies are designed to exploit stupidity, bias, and emotion, and the presence of democracy incentivizes powerful actors to reduce the educational and life-comfort quality of their opponents. Democracy is still one of the better systems, in my opinion, but it comes with significant drawbacks. However, I personally will always prefer democracy to any form of authoritarian rule. Even if the ruler elevated my own position, he would inevitably also crush enough of my loved ones to make me unable to support him. Maybe an ideologically homogenous society could thrive under an autocrat, but this becomes more and more impossible in the information age, and I can't forsee it happening without some natural global crisis occurring to reset large subsets of humanity to a base survival level.
One of my professors recently got into some trouble for presenting two game theoretical proofs about how democracy is inherently flawed, funnily, in the class before a local election. Bless his soul. I forget what one of them was called, but it used a 2x3 matrix of "votes" to show how more than two heterogeneous voters cannot come to a logically transitive conclusion. I think it was just a visual of Condorcet's Paradox, explained in this infographic:
Vandor, if you don't mind sharing, what would your be ideal system preferable to democracy?
Bookmarks