would you advocate proportional representation instead? that seems to have its own issues when it comes to ineffectual coalition gov'ts. i can't say i have answer or an opinion. i have a pretty dim view of democracy (and of humanity in general - i'm a hobbesian in that respect), but then again, i live in a country that elected dubya twice. that said, representative democracy is the least bad of several crappy alternatives.
personally, i think appellate jurisprudence and macroeconomic policy should both be run by committees of the best minds in those respective fields, appointed for life. partly because even well above average minds lack the knowledge to have any say in those fields, partly because those fields should not be subject to fleeting whims and idiotic mobs, and partly because without the need to get re-elected (and with no second career afterward), the chance of corruption or institutional capture by business interests is minimised.
social policy and civil liberties are perhaps best left to referenda or something close to it, but even that should be subject to the high court and the economic council, as public opinion can often contradict a nation's core principles in times of distress (again, because people are myopic and can't separate their emotions from sound judgment).
as for internet news, i don't think the avg person learns about liquidity traps, the colonial history of pakistan, and the economic history of the great depression online. they watch know-nothing talking heads spew misinformation and nonsense. because you can choose what to see, and because content providers have to cater to their audiences, the internet just ends up reinforces existing views. the balance between content pushed out to you v. you pulling in content has gone too far in the latter direction.
