[striking]

Because people can't hold all the issues in their mind, they'll pick a person that seems reasonably good at making decisions. Maybe I wouldn't pick Ice-T, but perhaps a scam artist who pretended to know about science?

People who think differently about topics eventually have their opinions recognized. There are certain things that could never happen (e.g. mandatory gun buyback will never be looked into because of the 2nd Amendment in the US, although I hear it worked well in Australia), but beyond those, eventually, good ideas tend to bubble up. For years people demanded universal healthcare in the US ("it works well in Canada!"), and the politicians fought and raged amongst themselves to decide that yes, now is the time to implement it. And it seems to work.

If you want to change your country, don't try to make a new system to supplant the existing one. Try to fix the old one. Or at least vote in it, so your voice is heard in the meantime.

[Steko]

> Maybe I wouldn't pick Ice-T, but perhaps a scam artist who pretended to know about science?

Seems like a silly objection, you could also vote for a scam artist for office under the status quo and that would be much worse than delegating your vote to one. At least with delegated votes most people wouldn't choose scam artists and the odds of scam artists/idiots winning office would be much lower.

> People who think differently about topics eventually have their opinions recognized.

This is simply not true, as 18th century Poland could attest if it hadn't been wiped out by it's own governmental paralysis.

> If you want to change your country, don't try to make a new system to supplant the existing one. Try to fix the old one.

This is contradictory. One way of fixing something that's broken is with a better system that has some fundamental differences.