One alternative that has been tried (and is, arguably, still being tried) is Constitutional Republic.

The difference is that some things get hammered into a Constitution and are indisputable without a significant process. That counterweights the populist "half of everyone is below average" effect.

Someone convinces a whole bunch of people that maybe slavery is actually super useful sometimes? Thirteenth amendment. A city wants to yank guns from people because everyone is panicking about shootings? Second amendment. Disney wants copyright to last forever because they're Disney? "securing for limited Times" phrasing in the Constitution. And so on.

It has its own weaknesses but one advantage is that change comes slower. This can be a problem when the past is on the wrong side of history, but it's a nice-to-have feature when the political temperature turns up and the odds of moving fast (and breaking things) increase.

It's probably a good thing that no matter how dumb any given American is, they can't legally sell themselves into slavery (even if they can get damn close).

▲

ghssds 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Someone convinces a whole bunch of people that maybe slavery is actually super useful sometimes? Thirteenth amendment.

Actually the thirteenth amendment explicitely allows slavery to exist in a case a whole bunch of people (maybe even yourself) think is super useful.

	▲	shadowgovt 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I was handwaving around the exception for criminals, but I concede your point: it's an oversimplification to say slavery is strictly illegal. (One can also make some interesting arguments around the notion of the draft).

▲

mullingitover 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> The difference is that some things get hammered into a Constitution and are indisputable without a significant process.

Yes, but there's an alternative 'significant process' which is to simply have a political party capture the body which interprets the constitution, and then an elite group of powerful insiders captures the political party, and then you're just an oligopoly but with additional steps.

	▲	shadowgovt 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Definitely. But, for what it's worth, that's a process that takes decades and requires an electorate profoundly asleep at the wheel. Like one that fumbles an election during a pivotal year that decides the timbre of their judicial system for a generation. Certainly not impossible though.