Reddit reviews Policy Making Process, The (3rd Edition)

Since you appear to be sincere, I will do my best to reciprocate the sincerity.

It is important to distinguish the difference between direct democracy and representative democracy and why the latter is more generally what people mean when talking about "democracy". Direct democracy is where the voters directly vote for policies. A representative democracy is where voters elect someone else to make decisions on their behalf. Direct democracy in the US is somewhat rare because some issues are too complex to be boiled down to yes/no answers. For instance, how should our healthcare system function? That is not something that can be put on a ballot with a yes/no question. In addition, there are some policy issues that require technical or classified/sensitive knowledge that might preclude the general public from being able to vote on.

These issues have been well understood for hundreds of years which is why, when the US government was designed by its founders, the primary mode chosen was representative democracy. There are still direct democracy aspects in the form of referendums, though (mostly conducted at the state level).

A few last notes: beyond just being a representative democracy, the power of the US government is divided so that no one person or branch can have too much power. This is very important to think about when we're talking about how political change happens in the US. It is not as simple as a voter can vote and a thing changes. Another thing to keep in mind is that, beyond the three branches of government, there are other influences involved in what the actual policy outcomes are. Lobbyists (which can be a both good or bad influence) and bureaucrats both have influence over what the actual policies are. Some people in the public policy world called policymakers + lobbyists + bureaucrats the "iron triangle" of the policy making process.

(Note: I know a lot of people read "lobbyist" and immediately think icky-icky thoughts (I do, too, to an extent) but this word can also refer to think tanks and other groups who you might consider expert level authorities on whatever the policy issue may be. For instance, if you're a scientist working on a revolutionary new technology that will help solve climate change, you could hire yourself a "lobbyist" to go up to the hill and plead your case. These cases are not the majority but they should not be discounted in the policy making process.)

Now on to a few points you made:

>I feel like a democracy that legitimizes opinions from infantile and ignorant citizens is a large disservice to our civilization.

This is an ancient criticism of democracy (see Plato's Republic, for instance, in which Socrates calls democracy the worst of all possible governments). It is also an issue that is frequently studied by scholars of public policy, government studies, political science, etc.. "The Policy Making Process" by Charles Lindblom is a nice, very short primer on some of these dilemmas.

Two questions are immediately self-evident: 1) How big is the problem of uninformed electorate? and 2) what are the alternatives?

For 1), the problem is concerning but not staggering. But, more importantly, it can be addressed. It is why democratic countries should require history and civics as part of fundamental education. Good education is essential for a democratic society. In addition, a free and open press is also crucial for a democratic society (to ensure that good information is widely available and accessible). Generally speaking, more education translates to more civic engagement, lower crime rates, and higher lifetime satisfaction. So there's ample reasons why democratic countries should focus significant resources on educating their populations.

For 2), the alternatives are not better, especially in the long run. There are some compelling arguments for monarchies (Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes) or technocracies (The Republic by Plato) but there's very serious, much more concerning problems with these approaches. For monarchies, concentrating power in a single person can seem compelling when compared to ineffectual or slow moving governments. A monarch can snap his/her finger and, boom, issue solved. This, however, assumes a benevolent/good monarch. Suppose you end up a tyrannical monarch? Things go tits up real quick. For technocracies, everything depends on how you select your technocrats. How does one define "smart" and is it the only thing we're concerned with as a society?

Over the long run, in non-democratic societies, the ruling class may have very different views/aims/goals than those of the general population and there is no mechanism to keep these two in alignment. The more "generations" of leadership there are, where the ruling class (who holds all the power, may veer further and further away from the general interests of society and more concentrated on their own interests (like staying in power, making sure they live comfortable/luxurious life, etc.) while the general population suffers. This is one reason why democratic societies are, despite their failings, better than non-democratic societies.

>We have to remember that the IQ distribution of humans follows a binomial model meaning that half of the damn planet is below a 100 IQ. Now of course IQ is not a perfect metric for one's competence in determining suitable figures to run our state - but generally, I would think yes.
>
>...
>
>But despite this huge ethical violation, it would almost always result in a more equipped entity to run the state, which in turn betters our future.

I agree IQ is not perfect (far from it, imo) and actually misleading about how "smart" a person is or can be. Or whether being "IQ smart" even be useful for running a government. I therefore absolutely disagree with it being a basis for who gets selected for public office.

I can think a litany of issues with selecting public officials by IQ: 1) There are lots of IQ tests available online (old MENSA tests, newer tests, etc.) where, given sufficient time to study/understand, most folks can do quite well on these tests. 2) How well you perform on these tests can vary dramatically from day to day, hour to hour. Consider: how well would you do on an IQ test after waking up or shortly before bed? How can we be confident that the IQ test is administered at someone's moment of peak performance? 3) The abstract questions asked on IQ tests may simply not apply to the requirements of a public official. I think this is a problem with IQ's general validity as a measure of intelligence. 4) There is a very well known relationship between IQ and health and nutrition. It therefore is not just a measure of intelligence alone. 5) It would ultimately give whoever writes/grades these IQ tests enormous political power. These would be the gatekeepers for political power which would be a very corrupting situation to be in.