Why pure elite rule is the ideal form of government
All countries without exception will always have to rely on a small number of people making the correct decision. If you include too many people in the decision-making process you will increase the risk of classified information being leaked unless you deprive people able to vote from knowing important information relevant for the decision they are going to make. In addition when you involve too many people in the decision-making process it will become hard to maintain good quality among the ones able to vote (due to running out of competent people) and people will be less motivated to vote for the good of the country when their vote is unlikely to actually change the outcome.
https://vintologi.com/threads/elite-rule.24/
Adding more people to the ruling elite can decrease the risk of a bad decision being made since then when an individual senator makes a bad decision in a vote the others will probably not vote with him, at least not enough for majority. In addition by having rule by an elite you can have a sleep schedule such that a majority will always be able to make a quick decision (such as pre-emptive nuclear strike).
But why not democratically elect people to govern for us?
The obvious issue is that if we cannot trust people to govern directly how are we supposed to trust them to make the right decisions on our behalf? politicians will be expected to please their voters.
One common misconception is that politicians tend to get elected telling people what they want to hear only to then lose popularity once elected, while a drop in popularity can follow elections what's often happen is the opposite, it's rare for a sitting president not to get re-elected, in general politicians already elected actually have an advantage showing that generally people are satisfied with the ones they voted for, it's the minority who didn't vote for them who are unhappy with them doing what they said they would do.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2111633
Of course you could try to use some 'merit based' voting system such basing it on the amount of tax paid by each individual, the obvious issue with that is that you could then increase your own power by giving yourself a valuable government contract (resulting in you paying even more in taxes) or having the government go after all your competitors. You still end up having to trust a small number of people to govern well in addition to having a functional election/sortition process.
In order for elections to work effectively as a check to government power people must be able to instantly or very quickly remove the ones in power before too much irreversible damage has been done, in nuclear war scenarios this can be less than 10 minutes, people might have to be woken up in the middle of the night to approve/deny launching nukes against russia.
So you need to rely on a small number of people (7 to 999) and have some mechanism to reach a conclusive outcome. One simple solution is to just give everyone one vote and then let the best ranked of them that voted have the deciding vote in the case of a draw.
You could also have a system where some people have more power than others (such as 10 senators with 10 votes each, 99 senators with 1 vote each) but then the senators with less votes will be less motivated to vote correctly and it's not clear that they would even increase the probability of a correct decision being reached (especially if the ones with 10 votes each are the most competent). In addition since the senators with 10 votes each would have a massive impact on the vote (such as 70 yes and 30 no) the senators with 1 vote each would be unlikely to even change the outcome in the first place.
It's better to empower a smaller number of senators (7 to 99) and let each senator have strong support from staff/advisors/successors (picked by the senator). Each senator could then get full access to classified information which might result in the senator having to ignore his/her ignorant advisors/staff/successors.
You could of course construct some complicated system involving multiple boards and mechanisms for having one board overrule another board but what that is at best equivalent to just letting everyone vote as a single group (such as having 100 senators have 2 votes and 99 senators having 1 vote). You could for example have 15 boards with 15 people each in them where you instead of going by what a majority voted for you go what most boards voted potentially letting the minority win, there is of course no advantage of that, then how much power someone has in a given vote will depend on which board that senator belongs to and this will be hard to predict in advance. If you go on what most boards voted for instead of going by what most senators voted for the number of votes required for a decision is reduced from 113 to 64 increasing the risk of a bad decision being made since less people have to vote incorrectly for the wrong decision to be made.
By introducing elections not controlled by the ruling elite you introduce a point of failure for the system, even if the ruling elite is doing a good job they will risk losing power to someone who is better at manipulating the voters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydx72tT552k
Many people in the US (especially conservatives) think it's a good idea to divide the authority in many different branches (judiciary, executive power, courts, governors, state legislatures, federal courts, state courts, etc) the obvious issue with that is that then you introduce many points of failure in the system. Even if you have a good federal government you may get screwed over due to a bad state government, you might have introduced a good law only to have the legal system strike it down or misinterpret it.
The more independent different branches of government are the bigger the risk is that one of these branches will go rouge wrecking the entire system. In addition it will be harder to coordinate the different branches to work effectively together.
https://vintologi.com/threads/the-overspecialization-problem.898
