Quote Originally Posted by Death BOO Z View Post
supposedly, back in Athens democracy, when 5000 privileged men could get together and make rousing speeches.

of course, due to human nature, it was more like 50 trolls and 300 lurkers bashing each other and calling to pass a decision to ilegalize people they don't like.

or something in between.

democracy needs elected officials who know about the issues, and voters who know what the issues are and how to learn more about them.
Frankly, getting the masses to 'smarten up' just isn't going to happen. Even if people become more informed, they don't automatically become less stupid. Knowledge does not equate to intelligence. So ultimately, leaving the decision of electing a leader in the hands of the masses is something that is never really going to work.

I think what is needed is a much more rigorous and discriminating system of selecting candidates where the involvement of the masses is kept to a minimum. Every candidate must prove that they will be an excellent leader. The masses can then go ahead and vote on these candidates. They can have the satisfaction of being part of the decision making process, although at this point, any one of the candidates would be good.

The focus on informing the public too much is a bad idea because once they understand the candidates better, they can influence the outcome of an election with their own selfish motives. Information on each candidate should be readily available, but should be something that people have to make an effort to look into themselves. Its better for stupid people who couldn't care less to make random decisions than ones with a motive. Of course, for this to work, the whole idea of campaigning and gaining popularity needs to be abolished. And at the end of the day, each of the candidates would make a good leader anyways.