Democracy Is an Unscientific Political System

Democracy is constantly touted as the ultimate political achievement of a civilization, but is actually a very primitive, long obsolete, and an extremely dangerous form of government. Certainly there are worse forms of government, but democracy is near the bottom. Even selecting government officials randomly, with sensible restrictions, would be superior to democratic elections. The idea of having a body of people with no or little knowledge in economics, history, and sociology choose leaders in a popularity contest is nothing short of insanity. It is almost the equivalent of a similar population choosing the administration of a technical facility, like a nuclear power plant. There are certainly positives to several democratic ideas, and they shouldn't all be done away with. There are even beneficial elements to democracy itself. People need certain rights and representation, but responsible rights and representation doesn't equate to an unqualified population choosing important positions in society. This is where a grave line is crossed. Certain rights, representation, and checks and balances can all be maintained without democracy. Perceived Success of Democratic Countries The wealth of many countries with democracy as a system is often credited to democracy itself. This is mostly an error of mistaking correlation and causation. The success of most of these countries is due to a combination of many cultural, economic and historic factors. Democracy is often more of a result of non-political successes rather than a cause of those successes. A wealthier economy is generally going to lead to those in the economy adapting more rights, even if it is a slow process. This is because a wealthier general population is more likely to demand rights, and a wealthier general population will tend to have less perception of scarcity, therefore having less natural motivation to restrict lower classes within the population. Democracy is less likely to come about in a wealthier country with a very lopsided distribution of wealth, because in those cases we aren't necessarily talking about a wealthier general population. This isn't to say democracy can only come about in wealthier general populations, but it is more likely to. Regardless of the specifics of these nuances, democracy is not the root cause of success in democratic countries. The peaceful transfer of power is an important stabilizing factor, but again, this does not need to be exclusive to the democratic process. Scientific Evidence The psychological realities of human behavior that the scientific community has discovered over the past couple hundred years have indirectly proven the flaws of the general idea of democratically elected governments. Groupthink, peer pressure, cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, and other related and scientifically proven phenomenon unveil the obvious fallibility of the human mind and human societies. This ensures that in almost every election the votes of the ignorant and easily emotionally manipulated public will greatly outnumber the votes of the rational and mentally flexible philosopher. The scientific process is certainly not needed to understand these simple concepts, as even some ancient thinkers have noticed them, but it further cements them in fact. Due to the fact that even ancient philosophers recognized the failure of democracy, democratically elected governments were never legitimate to begin with. Having a representative element of government that strictly adheres to the basic rights and needs of the people is beneficial, but the power of this element can not be allowed to extend beyond these concerns. Other administrators with power as a result of a democratic process are illegitimate and must be removed.