If I few people are experts then shouldn’t they have the final say in matters? — I like sushi

In some matters, yes. Whether or not children should be vaccinated against measles has been decided by public health experts. That's the way it should be. People with no training in public health, and people with rudimentary knowledge about disease should not make these decisions: anti-vaxxers to hell forthwith.

In matters of public policy, such as "should the UK stay with the European Union or should it leave" which affects everyone, the public should have the final say. Experts (clearly not members of parliament in this case) should provide counsel, but not make the decision.

Neither experts nor the mass of people will always make "the best choice".

I don’t see how that follows? The public had their say and that is why citizens in the UK voted to leave. If you think it’s a bad idea then you’re against the masses decision.

To add, if you think it is because the public were fooled, then that is no reason to allow them to say what should or shouldn’t happen.

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."
Winston S. Churchill

Ofcourse what you're suggesting is true. However, I see democracy as a kind of natural conclusion for the decision making of mankind.

Every individual is born with a voice and to this extent, a degree of power. We can all be reduced to an individual with subjective opinions and a voice. Over time, this concludes in laws that protect our individual right to a voice; Because no matter your education, the greatest minds can't disagree that they are too, just a voice. As much as some might like to do, it would be philosophically dishonest to remove rights from an individual.

If these rights are removed, you've got a revolution brewing. Strength doesn't require intellect and people will fight for their freedom.

I suppose that democracy isn't really a choice, it is a predictable outcome of self aware, intellectual and compassionate animals. An intelligent, bloodless way of having a tribal war.

Correct, the public aren't experts on Brexit, but they're not really experts on anything. You can't really tell people that they're incapable of making their own decisions and leaving the EU couldn't be done discreetly. There isn't really another way, I'd say.

Can we make decent national democratic decisions? No. Is there another way? Not short term.

I don’t see how that follows? The public had their say and that is why citizens in the UK voted to leave. If you think it’s a bad idea then you’re against the masses decision.

To add, if you think it is because the public were fooled, then that is no reason to allow them to say what should or shouldn’t happen. — I like sushi

I thought I clearly supported the idea of the people making the choice on Brexit. I don't know whether the information people received during the pre-referendum vote was good or not. I wasn't there. But in principle, that sort of decision belongs to the electorate.

People will compete for the power to rule.

Absent any system or rules, that competition will be brutal and bloody.

Democracy is one of the ways transition of the power to rule can be resolved peacefully.

And I'd say it's a rather succesfull way to go about that in particular, because by definition it gives legitimicy to the (new) rule. Without legitimicy, chances are you get unrest and, again, more bloodshed.

So, I guess my point is that faulting democracy for its lack of meritocratic decision-making misses the point.

Also typically, in most democratic system, people don't have a say in decision-making anyway because they are representative democracies (i.e. the people only get to vote on who will take the decisions).

I thought I clearly supported the idea of the people making the choice on Brexit. I don't know whether the information people received during the pre-referendum vote was good or not. I wasn't there. But in principle, that sort of decision belongs to the electorate. — BitterCrank

Yes, you were clear. My argument against this is that if half the people voting are doing so under false pretenses (due to lack of knowledge) then they may prevent the best informed decision being made; or vica versa which is still basically a gamble.

If you’ve got a health problem do you ask the population of your country to vote on what treatment you should take. I would say you don’t do this not just because it is impractical, but because you want an informed opinion not simply opinions based on snippets of information from unqualified people.

I don’t see how this is any different in politics. If there is a big decision to consider then the government should deal with because it is their job and they are in a professional position with ready access to information to look into the possible outcomes and vote amongst themselves about the nest course of action.

I am not talking specifically about Brexit btw. I am saying that perhaps it is much better to only have people who are informed and qualified to vote on such matters - how to measure this has it’s own problems too, not denying that! As a starter I’d pefer teh governing body to make ALL major decisions and only put to vote the flavour of the meal not ask them to make their own recipe whilst they sit back and relax.

Also typically, in most democratic system, people don't have a say in decision-making anyway because they are representative democracies (i.e. the people only get to vote on who will take the decisions). — ChatteringMonkey

The people still vote for their representatives though. I am basically asking if such votes should be allowed to EVERYONE given that whoever they choose as a representative affects everyone in the nation - note: we’re all well aware that democracy is not perfect I’m not saying it’s all terrible :)

My main concern is whether or not the sensible informed opinions are being drowned out by the masses whose perspective is generally myopic in nature. Do current mass global communications benefit mass appeal over individual talent more now than in the past?

Unfortunately or not, societies have clashing interests. It is entirely possible for 100% of the electorate to vote on matters for which they are competent to vote, and still end up with results that are quite harmful to some people.

There are numerous votes I would expect to lose in many jurisdictions, even under ideal conditions for voting. I would expect many jurisdictions to reject gay rights, legal abortion, or allowing more immigrants into xyz jurisdiction. Many jurisdictions would quite happily vote to require welfare recipients work for their benefits at a low rate of pay, punish some crimes much more severely than they are now, or expel immigrants who were not thoroughly authorized to be there.

Which is why many people are at least extremely cautious about citizen referenda.

Competent citizens have little incentive to consider the interests of people of whom they disapprove. Legislators, because they are elected by diverse groups of voters, are more likely to think twice about shafting some group, however unpopular that might be.

It isn't that legislators are necessarily more informed, more competent, wiser, more humane, and so forth than the wider body politic. Quite obviously many of them are not. But there is a brake on their voting button: re-election and campaign donations (or even a recall). There is also the matter of getting along with their peers in the legislature. The quid pro quo back scratching that goes on in legislatures helps curb individual's extremism.

How popular voting should be leaves me uncomfortably sitting on the picket fence.

So then we established that the question is whether everyone should be allowed to vote on the people who will make the decisions.

As it stands, not everybody is allowed to vote, you have to have a certain age.

Other than that general age restriction, the difficulty to me seems to be how we will determine who should be allowed to vote. Since the vote is not directly related to the decisions that have to be made, but only to the people who we will grant the power to make decisions, the ability to assess peoples skills, abilities and character would be one of the primary abilities one would need to 'deserve' the right to vote. So then the conclusion would be something like restricting voting to HR managers and psychologists?

I don't think there has ever been a point in human history in which politics has been constructed to satisfy a purely meritocratic outcome. Rather, politics has always been about satisfying core ethical or personal aspirations. We can see this as far back as Plato, and you would be hard pressed, I think, to find a major political theorist which advocates for political systems based upon their effectiveness in governance alone. To borrow terminology from Weber, Politics is about Substantive Rationality rather than Formal Rationality. That is to say, it is rational in achieving non-rational ends (ethical, religious, traditional values) rather than being an end in itself. This is why I think criticising Democracy (or any political system) on the grounds that it is Formally inefficient doesn't have much purchase, as most ideologies have never been argued for on these grounds. The universal franchise is substantively rational in achieving the value of equality even if it is formally irrational in terms of pure utility. And you could apply this to a whole host of inefficiencies in society. For example, you could make the argument that many of the resources allocated to education are wasted on children who show no academic potential and don’t need much of an education to be carpenters or brick-layers, and as such these resources should instead be used on those best and brightest students. This may be true on the basis of pure utility, but it violates the liberal values of equality, meliorism, and individual liberty. It would be formally rational, but substantively irrational. That is why we have universal education rather than selective education, even if selective education would be more efficient and achieve better results.

I also don’t think the simply having educated people voting would solve anything; I tend to agree with Castells when he says “The more citizens are educated, the more they are capable of elaborating interpretations of available information in support of pre-determined political preferences. This is because a higher level of knowledge provides people with more intellectual resources for self-rationalisation in support of their emotionally induced misperceptions.” That is to say, there is no guarantee that a higher level of education or knowledge will lead to some harmonised objectively correct viewpoint. I’m sure you don’t need me to tell you that very knowledgeable and intelligent people often heatedly disagree on the subject they are both experts in. Any political issue is likely to have many correct available answers, being more or less correct depending on which values to hold and which you seek to achieve. Plato’s republic to us seems like a tyranny, to him it seemed perfectly Just. I don't think you could say either position is objectively more correct than the other. Rather, we should judge political decisions and systems on their capacity to fulfil their ethical considerations, and argue about which ethical goals we should seek to realise. Efficiency could be one of them.

Thanks for the replies :)

I’d like to add something to what’s been said, but don’t really know how to. I do find it miraculous that humanity has managed to adapt relatively quickly from clusters of roaming families into city dwellers and nations of millions.

As an aside to this how much would you put this adaptability down to our ability to categorise; meaning our necessary function of cutting our social lives into different relative pieces (partner, children, family, friends, neighbours, etc.,.)?

What this draws my attention to is the question of how far we can extend our social circle? Religious institutions have attempted this (meaningfully/accidentally) with limited success. The democratic process began prior to the ancient Greeks for sure, but they flourished under this idea (albeit far removed from what we consider “democratic” today) within the limits of a “city state”.

It always surprises me that we’re naturally inclined to work in smaller groups with greater efficiency than in larger groups (mirrored in how government members are numbered and in sports teams too), yet we’re able to align “smaller” groups for a perceived common good too and set aside the need to understand everyone within arms reach with any serious degree of intimacy.