[charcircuit]

It requires people to be educated about what they are voting on. Having people spend time educating themselves wastes a lot of societal time. Voting doesn't scale well so people end up delegating their votes to someone else who usually doesn't have the same exact beliefs and may vote different than themselves. It turns into a popularity contest. The process of making decisions can be slow.

[wolverine876]

If we aren't a democracy, can we just ignore your opinion and do what we want?

> Voting doesn't scale well

It's scaled amazingly well, far beyond what the creators could have imagined. Billions vote around the world. In the US, without looking up the population in 1776, it's probably scaled 100x.

And it's been, by far, the most successful, free, prosperous, stable, functional form of government in human history. Name any that comes close - any country that has come close in history that isn't a democracy. Name a better form of government, or a country in any time and place that people would prefer to live in. Note the massive migration to democracies. It's like citing Apple Computer as a company that doesn't scale well (except there are other companies in Apple's league, and no other form of government competes with democracy).

The only question is, who is so anxious to tear it down and why?

[DoctorOW]

You don't have to answer as we've definitely drifted off topic.

Is there a reasonable solution to these problems? I feel like without the popularity contest element, that's only more delegating to those who don't necessarily vote the way people would want. Without the delegating, there is stronger requirements on a citizen to educate themselves.

Representative democracy seems to be at the rough point of compromise between these downsides.

edit:formatting

[charcircuit]

>Is there a reasonable solution to these problems?

One idea is community level dictatorships where people can freely create, fork, join, and leave these communities.