> The issues we face are complex and technical enough that I would like our leaders to be well-educated I don't think we are facing much complex issues beyond

> The issues we face are complex and technical enough that I would like our leaders to be well-educated I don't think we are facing much complex issues beyond anyone's grasp. Of course it takes some level of study to understand the issues, but as the french citizen convention on climate [0] (started by the government itself) has shown, given appropriate information ordinary citizens are very capable to grasp complex issues (and ordinary leaders are very capable to ignore those citizens and wipe their asses with their proposals). What you advocate for, whether consciously or not, is not a democracy but a form of technocracy [1]. It sounds like a good idea at first, but: - centralizing power (eg. in a parliament/government) is always always the recipe for abuse [2], even if you take the 500 best people you can think of - political issues are not just technical issues, and we science/tech people from our somewhat-comfortable ivory towers are in a very bad position to make diagnostics on what goes right and wrong in society (except on a micro level where our science applies) - solving complex problems requires a level of coordination/participation which can only be consented; trying to force the people against its will "for its own good", often results in exactly the opposite of what you wanted to achieve in the first place All in all, i would personally argue as long as "leaders" is a thing there's a very little hope for humanity. [0] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_citoyenne_pour_le_climat https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_citoyenne_pour_le_c... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy [2] One could argue if you have elected representatives deciding for the people, then it is not a democracy because the power is not operated by the people directly.