And that's what this is, an argument against democracy. A vote cast by a shut-in illiterate who chooses candidates based on their astrology sign is just as valid as the chair of the political science department. Anything less than that is an argument for weighted or exclusive suffrage. You can believe in democracy or the "low information" voter, but not both.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 12 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Acknowledging that democracy as glorified sortition is not actually in any way better than sortition is not an argument against democracy; it is an argument for creating the circumstances in which an active citizenry meaningfully and knowledgeably participates in the civic life of their polity. It's not about 'weighting' or making suffrage exclusive, it's about creating a society in which good citizenship is enabled and valued by the institutions of society.

[–] yesman@lemmy.world -2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

creating the circumstances in which an active citizenry meaningfully and knowledgeably participates in the civic life of their polity

Why stop there? If your project requires an improved humanity to work, why not just improve us until we don't need governance?

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

You do realize that an educated citizenry is not some superhuman impossible feat for our genetic code, right