I think people forget that universal suffrage and male suffrage are pretty recent phenomenon, so when talking about democracies we should understand that historical democracies were very different. As such this weakness may be more of a character of modern universal suffrage democracies. There might be a middle point between everybody voting and one person voting that would be more optimal.
Historical humanity was nothing like what you have now, a product of generations of modern democracy which has yielded the most free, most wealthy, most prosperous places and times in the history of humanity.
For ~95% of human (homo sapien) history, we were hunter-gatherers. Everything else is a recent phenomenon. Even starting with settled, post-hunter-gatherers, democracy wasn't common at all until the last couple centries. We left that past behind for a reason, and live far, far better now.
> There might be a middle point between everybody voting and one person voting that would be more optimal.
Who gets to decide that? No doubt you would be willing to let others rule over you, taking away your freedom and power? Whoever doesn't have a seat at the table is certain to be victimized by those in power.
I have never voted, and can’t vote in the country I live in. And I’m perfectly happy with it. You could say I voted with my feet and my wallet. There are plenty of ways to wield power without voting.
I know it’s a touchy point for people, the justifications being if you’re taxed then you must be able to vote. I know plenty of people who would give up their vote to live tax free. Then there is also the draft, if you can be drafted you must be able to vote. I would rather abolish the draft.
We live in an era with many firsts so historical comparisons are not generally particularly useful. And I think it’s too early to tell if all modern decisions are good ones.
The point I’m making is people are thinking the two options are dictatorship or universal suffrage democracy and I’m saying not only does a middle ground exist but that middle ground used to be the default.
You don't need to try the BS characterizations of people who disagree with you. Just make your argument.
You may know people who make those choices, but those are their choices, their democratic, free choices, and they can change their minds tomorrow if they don't like how it's working out. That's the point - they choose, nobody else gets to choose for them.
> The point I’m making is people are thinking the two options are dictatorship or universal suffrage democracy and I’m saying not only does a middle ground exist but that middle ground used to be the default.
> There might be a middle point between everybody voting and one person voting that would be more optimal.
That’s called an dictatorship. Absolute unquestionable authority is a myth, even Stalin relied on the support of others to stay in power and had to make decisions while keeping that in mind. Most other dictators in history didn’t even remotely have as much power as him.
