[ethical_source]

Who gets to rule, then, and why? Your position that the masses shouldn't rule is at odds with a government legitimized by the consent of the government. Why should I or anyone else obey a government I don't consider legitimate?

[iterance]

Five essential questions of democracy (Tony Benn):

    “What power have you got?”

    “Where did you get it from?”

    “In whose interests do you use it?”

    “To whom are you accountable?”

    “How do we get rid of you?”

His observation is that the last question fundamentally defines a democracy - not the ability for the people to give someone power, but to dispose of that power via accepted protocols. It is also the reason people with power so commonly hate democracy: properly answered, these questions limit their use of that power, and threaten to remove their access to it completely.

[Supermancho]

The problem is one of scale, at the macro level.

The upside to large countries is that they are economically and militarily stronger, on average. This is leads to a high resistance to outside influence. The downside is large enough (arbitrary) populations encompass multiple ideologies and understandings of the world, which lead to infighting and ultimately destabilization. Note the 3.5% rule, among cultural drift and competing economic incentives.

On the flip side, a small concentrated population is more stable internally, but is fragile to outside influences.

The short answer is the masses are precisely who should rule. The long answer is that they can't if you want the nation to be independent. I posit, there is no optimal balance. There are only different choices that ultimately lead to ruin.

[analog8374]

A ruling technology maybe. Open source, auditable.

[ezekiel68]

Those who watch the Watchers.