Democracy in its current state is fundamentally flawed, as it grossly overestimates the knowledge an average voter has about the political climate and the consequences political actions may have in the long run.
however
score: 1
Democracy does not seek the ideal policy, but the policies that most people want. This is by design and not a flaw.
Nothing compels a voter to vote using their knowledge of the topic being voted on. A voter could choose to vote randomly (coin flip / dice roll) or in a manner based, at least in part, on unrelated external factors (such as whether a politician is an adherent of a certain religion).
There is little misassumption about democracy. It has been known for thousands of years that this is a key drawback in democracy. It may be better stated as an inherent flaw with the estimate that many people will be ignorant voters.
If the political climate itself is flawed, the knowledge of the voter isn't going to change it for the better, unless the climate (and thus the specific democracy) were to undergo radical change.
A large group's aggregated answers to questions involving... general world knowledge... has generally been found to be as good as, and often better than, the answer given by any of the individuals within the group.
Most current democracies are representative democracies where voters should be voting on who they trust to properly study the issues and make the correct decisions, not directly voting on the issues themselves.
it is flawed largely by a fundamental paradox: that of the liberal democracy. This political system that advocates a liberalism of individual choice, conflicts with the collective demands of the democratic. They cannot co-exist as they are pure, partially conflicting ideologies in themselves.
There are no extant democratic forms of government. The closest is the United States, which is still technically a representative republic. The are significant and fundamental differences between the two.
shaftstroker
