[jneal]

The problem with democracy is the people are easily influenced by false truths.

I'm all for democracy, but I also realize that a well informed vote and an uninformed vote are equal and therein lies the problem. It's not really something that can be fixed within a true democracy.

[rayiner]

The false premise in your post is that "being well-informed" would lead you to a particular conclusion. Governing isn't like building a dam. You'd be insane to build a dam by getting random people on the street to design it. But the principles underlying governance aren't predictable like the principles underlying engineering. You're not going to find prominent engineers at leading universities disagree about whether concrete with a particular compressive strength will hold back a particular amount of water. Yet, you had a number of prominent economists on the pro-Brexit side: http://www.wsj.com/articles/pro-brexit-economists-make-case-....

At the end of the day, on most issues (obviously there are exceptions), the "informed" class is just guessing or following a particular ideology. Was NAFTA good for the average American? 20 years later economists still can't definitively answer that question!

[enraged_camel]

>>At the end of the day, on most issues (obviously there are exceptions), the "informed" class is just guessing

Decisions based on educated guesses are always preferable to those based on emotion and sentiment.

edit: stop downvoting me based on emotion and sentiment!

[zanny]

This is why you have republics. Even moreso when you can get the people to elect representatives based on familiarity and quality rather than propaganda.

Someone whose job it is to run the country should be much more informed than people who only make political decisions once every couple years for major policy decisions involving the whole country with ride ranging ramifications.

I think its the same argument communists make - that the USSR, China, Cuba, etc have all been failed states that never were what Marx and Lenin intended, and they devolved into totalitarian dictatorships rather than becoming the socialist paradise the ideological founders wanted.

In the context of republics, a similar argument stands. We should have representatives with empathic relations with their constituents going both ways - the people should be picking the best amongst themselves to rule, but most existent democracies have devolved into elites picking the leaders and voters having no relations whatsoever with their own leadership, which was supposed to be the entire point.

[noamyoungerm]

There are a large number of issues for which there exist equally well-informed arguments for both sides, or that there is no actual 'true' answer to be chosen.

[lawpoop]

Isn't that a problem with all forms of government? That the people in charge can be influenced by false truths?

[jessaustin]

When there are "people in charge", them being misinformed is the least of one's worries. The bigger problem is that they are very well informed about how their actions affect their own interests.

[zghst]

Actually being misinformed is the top worry. That's why we have intelligence agencies.

[jessaustin]

Sarcasm?

[lawpoop]

I don't know, it seems that people of all political stripes believe that the politicians in other parties are grossly misinformed. I could point to countless examples to politicians in my party and others.

[ovulator]

Not with God Kings & Theocracy, their truth is the truth by definition and will override any preexisting truths.