I am more and more convinced that democracy just needs to be one input to the political process, not the only one and maybe not even the primary one. The Unite

I am more and more convinced that democracy just needs to be one input to the political process, not the only one and maybe not even the primary one. The United States was never intended to be a strongly democratic place, at least at the national level. Presidents are elected by electors, who are divided among the states according to population, and directed by the state legislatures. Senators were originally chosen by state legislatures, and there are two per state. All federal judges are appointed. That basically leaves the House of Representatives, who are selected by the people. And they have the most power over spending, which makes sense as a check on entrenched powers. Over time, we've become more democratic either through amendments or convention. I'm not entirely convinced that's a good thing. IRV is trying to help choose from the options on the democratic menu, but it doesn't solve the problem of what to put on the menu in the first place. In California, right now voters are considering a proposition about dialysis treatment centers and what they can charge. If I vote yes (like the insurance companies would prefer) then I am apparently damning dialysis patients to the grave. If I vote no (like the private equity firms that own the centers would prefer) then I am allowing poor patients to be overcharged and subjected to unsanitary conditions. At least that's what the TV tells me. It just seems like a bad idea to put every technical issue out for a vote. I think that's the logical conclusion of democracy and I don't think it's a good place to go. But it seems like all the new voting systems assume that it is what we all want.