I think the difficulty of following news with any sense of fluency, not to mention more in-depth technical issues like energy and ecology, makes me think that democracy is at its stressing point. Education alone cannot be the answer — unless we think we can educate people to the point of being general experts on such a broad but critical slate of issues like energy, geopolitical strategy, domestic healthcare, etc.

Perhaps the future of democracy is made of voters who subscribe to institutions of intellectual or moral credibility that tell people directly how to vote (churches, policy groups) rather than a firehose of content where you make up your own mind on how to vote. It sounds more anti-intellectual than it is, but many people are already cognitively and emotionally maxed out.

Very little news needs to be followed to be a good citizen of a democracy. Local news, sure, on perhaps a weekly or monthly basis (i.e. you probably don't need to check in every day). National, state level (at least for states that aren't so tiny that state news is local news), and international, perhaps quarterly, but you don't really need much of that.

A better use of time for someone wanting to be a good citizen would be reading major books and papers in political philosophy, political science, international relations, public policy, economics, statistics, media studies, history, et c. Not the news.

> Perhaps the future of democracy is made of voters who subscribe to institutions of intellectual or moral credibility that tell people directly how to vote

It already is this way, and has been this way for centuries. Be it religion, ethnic identity, economic class, geographic loyalty, or political ideologies. The average voter is not an independent minded participant.

Political parties. Community Organizations. The Political Machines of the Gilded Age and the Unions of the late industrial.

Human nature never changes. Democracy just gives us a chance to have a say in how society harnesses that nature, rather than a small group of people born into power because their ancestors were part of the inner circle of victors in the war that established their nation.

Edit: I’m big believer in democracy and republics, but a really cynical take on the whole system is “the peasants get a chance to choose who which aristocrat rules them…and occasional elevate one of their own.”

I don't think things are much different than they were, say, 100 years ago. Back then there was a dearth of information, so you needed representatives, or parties, to vote in your interest when you had to do other things.

Now we have a glut of information, but the problem is the same - there are so many topics, it's hard to prioritize and determine what is necessary or important.

Look at our government. We have committees, and experts brought to those committees to help them draft law. Instead of trying to be an expert in everything, we should focus on what we want to be experts in, moving forward in these areas and trusting those working in other areas to do what's best. There is no other realistic path.

It is hard to trust any expert/gonverment if main motivation is profit. Look what is happening right now. Poor are more poor and rich are getting rich even more. So, naturally, trust in expertise is relative if it cannot bring you food for survive.

Seems like in an ideal world political parties would be the "institutions of intellectual or moral credibility that tell people directly how to vote". Of course, in the current United States that doesn't work because there is a practical limit of 2 major parties, and neither are really bastions of intellectual or moral credibility.

I'm not super well-versed in non-US politics, so I wonder if there is any democracy where parties actually work in that ideal way?