[agarsev]

I don't think democracy is about having the "best" government, that'd be technocracy, I guess. Democracy is about sharing the power, and having the most legitimate government based on the principle that everyone's voice is equal.

Also, it's not a zero sum game at all. First, even if the long stretches of good and bad governments equalized over the long term, it's much worse to live all your life under a bad government than have one half the time. Also,thinking as an engineer, think about the stability implications of a wildly swinging signal vs a smoothly swinging one, even if both are centered.

In any case, coming from a country which had a long dictatorship until not so long ago, it's fairly clear it's not a zero sum game.

[zkmon]

Maturity of a voter is over-estimated. If they are like kids, giving them candy is all that is required to get votes. If they hate the other community, hitting hard at the other community is all that is needed. Sharing of power? Coalition governments can't agree on almost anything. Heck, they take months to even form a government, after the elections are over.

Sometimes a move to democracy only resulted in the same aristocratic families grabbing the power quite easily and keeping it for decades.

Getting votes is entirely a different skill from running a country to its prosperity. Unfortunately it is seen as qualification to become a leader.

[keybored]

> I don't think democracy is about having the "best" government, that'd be technocracy, I guess.

That’s not the definition of technocracy. It’s more of a value judgement.

“aristocracy” etymologically means rule-by-the-best for what it’s worth.