Democracy is fucked up

[Zenith]

1. In Democracy, everybody - of some minimum age - can vote, and the candidate who wins is he who wins most votes (in most systems)
Problem: When you have 10% of people going to vote, you've got 10% of people deciding the fate for the whole 100% of people.

If 90% of the population made the choice to leave their fate in the hands of the other 10%, then there's not really a problem.  Or if there is, the solution is pretty obvious: the 90% can head to the voting booth.

Your first point is followed by several points about how the electorate is mostly unqualified to make an informed selection at the voting booth.  In which case, if 90% of the voting public is low-IQ, uninformed, incompetent, and has unrealistic expectations... then maybe it's not a problem that only the other 10% are voting.  Maybe that's when democracy works best.

The problem, Tonus, is that in a scenario where 10% of the population go to vote scenario, it is not the smart, knowledgeable ones who go to vote, but the gullible.

I.e. you'll have a distribution such as this one - I take the whole population now:
1% - smart and knowledgeable people who go to vote
9% - gullible, misinformed, manipulated people who go to vote
90% - "I'm not interested in politics!", "all politicians are the same!", "my vote cannot make a difference!", "do you really believe you can change the country?" kind of people, who don't go to vote.

---

@Tazzycorn  --- something's wrong with the page, it brings Minimalist's post when I issue the reply to you.

I used to believe that as well.

But you have to consider how it actually works in practice, and if it tends to yield good results or bad results, in most democratic countries.
That is, if, say, only 5-10% of the democratic countries are performing well, then it's very likely that the cause in those countries are the people (e.g. a better culture, mentality), rather than say that the system is the cause.

Otherwise, even the Feudal system, or Communism, or Christianity, for that matter, you could say is good - and that it is the people who keep them from working properly.

I believe, a good system is one that takes into account the weaknesses of the people, considers its deficiencies, and thus keep risks low, not one that blames the people for not being able to make it work.

Um no, it isn't either or, but both. If you have a lopsided government, like our now monopoly GOP gerrymandered government, that part is NOT the fault of Dems, but their party's effective marketing to get voters to support them. But, it is our fault as voters for not participating especially at local and state and midterms. Outside that I do agree that our corporate climate is far too full of assholes who like socializing the profits to the CEOs and shareholders and socialize the loses on the tax payers when they lose. That part I do not like. 

I think it is more a time frame issue. Right now the GOP has no right to blame anyone for the corporate welfare they set up and they most certainly are to blame for using the bullshit slur that anyone pointing this out is anti private sector.

I believe elections in a democracy is more about gut-feeling than reasoning and scrutinizing candidates and weighing possibilities.
People are biased. They like some candidates, others they do not. Therefore, they find all kinds of excuses for the candidate they support, while the guy they don't like is "corrupt until proven otherwise".

Also, democracy tolerates and even encourages irresponsibility: It is not individuals who work together, hard, for a common goal and evaluate their decisions, but rather people who expect welfare to be given to them by those who have the power.