But is it a bad thing for the population to not be fully in charge? Isn't the point of "tyranny of the majority"[1] that sometimes the majority can/will make th

But is it a bad thing for the population to not be fully in charge? Isn't the point of "tyranny of the majority"[1] that sometimes the majority can/will make the wrong decision? Part of electing representatives, to me, is that I hope the would make the tough calls and do the right thing, and not the popular thing. Can not part of representation (if it could be made to work well) be to defer to a person's wisdom? Certainly, the majority of the population is not even remotely qualified in the area of computer encryption, for example — should they, with no knowledge of the subject — be making decisions on how to legislate it?[2] (It's for reasons like this that I'm interested in forms of government where you can delegate your vote on topics to someone with more expertise or trust in that area; my hope being that it results in better decision-making than what a simple majority is capable of.) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority [2]: Though sadly, in the US at least, I don't think our form of representation adequately handles niche issues like that.