I don’t want to get too bogged down in a debate about semantics. Really this was an article about the shortcomings of elections, and I used the wider concept of democracy to hang that on.

However, I would define a democracy as a situation when citizens are free to express opposing political viewpoints and there is an effective and established mechanism to peacefully change government.

Does the solution not lie, however, in circumventing this entire issue by noting the evil to be voting for candidates within parties, when we ought be voting for the policies themselves?

Lets imagine Govts broken into 5-10 agnostic departments, manned by experts without political prejudice, holding the responsibility to implement the consensus view of the voter. In respect of the 5 reasons to distrust democracy, we might see….

1. None of the anti-freedom measures accepted, certainly not if the option was expressed to voters in terms of willingness to pay for them.
2. There would not be any tyranny of the minority – the population could vote for (e.g.) stronger prison sentences vs less prison sentences; more immigration vs. less immigration etc. If the issue means something to you, you vote.
3. Parties act out of self-interest. Politicians currently lie, deceive etc because of self-interest, within the party system. So, engineer this behaviour: Re-define the role of MP to being a literal public servant. To act in the public interest and self-interest becomes one and the same.
4. As above – individuals could certainly voice their opinions in public debates that preceded votes to change policy, thereby persuading and educating others. Everyone can be an activist.
5. If people vote on prejudices, then let’s change that. Removing the party system removes the targets of those ancient prejudices. The proposal – to vote for policy direction – also serves to motivate curiosity and engagement with the issues and see prejudices challenged within the inevitable debates.

Switzerland – best off country in Europe: I rest my case.