[squigz]

Having all the information available is but one part of the challenge. It has never been easier to get educated on all sides of every issue we face, yet...

The problem still remains that we can't expect individuals (let alone millions of them) to be able to appropriately weigh in on things that require more than 5 minute reading on an online platform. One cannot gain an expert understanding, nor an appreciation of the nuances that come with that, in that situation.

[zo1]

I think this is some sort of fallacy that (us) intellectuals easily fall into. Education and understanding of a topic for the most part does not sway peoples' opinion. And democracy shouldn't be about that, because then it becomes a game of "who can convince the most people" and "who can indoctrinate the most", rather than simply being the will of the people that they naturally form as part of existing as individuals and interacting with the world around them.

[squigz]

I'm confused. Are you suggesting that people can/should be able to make decisions about individual policy decisions - as I took your GP comment to mean - or are you saying that that's antithetical to democracy...?

[zo1]

Yes - I 100% think we should allow all voters to be able to vote on individual policy decisions.

But democracy shouldn't be about giving them that choice only if they are educated and informed on the topic, that is antithetical to democracy. Their choice matters whether they are informed on it or not, that's their choice - period. Of course, it would be good to give them all the info we can on the topic and we should strive to do our best to help them be informed. And if that's the case, and we agree democracy is about the will of the people, not their "expertise" and "knowledge" on a topic, then there is absolutely no reason why we should deny the possibility of more direct-democracy type decision making.

[squigz]

I don't think anybody was suggesting it as some kind hard requirement - that would indeed probably be dangerous. I am still confused by your comment though

> Education and understanding of a topic for the most part does not sway peoples' opinion. And democracy shouldn't be about that, because then it becomes a game of "who can convince the most people" and "who can indoctrinate the most", rather than simply being the will of the people that they naturally form as part of existing as individuals and interacting with the world around them.

It sounds like you're saying understanding of a topic should come second to how citizens "feel" about it. There's no denying that's how it is much of the time, but should it be?

People, as part of existing as part of the world, naturally form hatred or distrust of various groups of people based on their personal interactions. How is it healthier for society to act on those feelings, vs electing people and building institutions that act based on reason and good faith?